Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1461/2016 on 11 February, 2026
2026:UHC:857
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C-482 No.1461 of 2016
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Suraiya Naaz, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
4. Present C-482 application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Case No.108 of 2016 under Section 420 I.P.C., as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
5. Brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that on 29.05.2015 respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against three persons including the present applicants, alleging that he was desirous of purchasing a plot near the Ganga at Haridwar and, for that purpose, approached certain persons engaged in the business of sale and purchase of property. It was alleged that the accused persons assured him that they would provide a suitable plot at a reasonable price and that he paid earnest money to them. Subsequently, upon making inquiries, respondent no.2 allegedly came to know that the accused persons were not the real owners of the land in question. On demanding return of the earnest money, an amount of ₹1,65,000/- was returned, whereas the remaining amount was not refunded. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 420 I.P.C., 2026:UHC:857 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 17.02.2016, which is under challenge in the present application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the criminal proceedings are wholly unsustainable in law. It is contended that the F.I.R. does not disclose the essential particulars of the alleged transaction, such as the specific date, time and place of inducement or payment. It is further submitted that the prosecution case is based upon an unregistered and undated document allegedly executed on non- judicial stamp paper in connection with certain khasra numbers. However, neither the present applicants are signatories to the alleged agreement dated 14.07.2007, nor are they witnesses thereto. The complainant himself is not a party to the said agreement.
7. It is argued that even if the contents of the alleged document are taken at face value, the transaction, at best, reflects a business arrangement wherein the complainant was to receive ₹14 lakhs along with 50% share in the profits upon resale of the plot. Thus, the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature and does not disclose the commission of any criminal offence. It is further submitted that there was no averment in the F.I.R. that at the inception of the transaction the applicants had any fraudulent or dishonest intention; that, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had also stayed further proceedings of the criminal case vide order dated 21.10.2016.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant opposed the application and submitted that respondent no.2 is a senior citizen aged about 74 years. He placed reliance upon certain receipts allegedly executed on stamp paper showing payment of ₹14 lakhs as earnest money. He contended that the applicants dishonestly induced the complainant to part with his money and thereafter failed to execute the 2026:UHC:857 sale deed. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalmuni Devi vs. State of Bihar and also in Inder Chand Bagri vs. Jagdish Prasad Bagri and Another, to contend that where dishonest intention is evident, proceedings under Section 420 I.P.C. are maintainable.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10. To attract the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C., the prosecution must prima facie establish: (i) deception of a person; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property; and (iii) existence of dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction. It is well settled that mere breach of contract or failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute the offence of cheating unless it is shown that the intention to deceive existed from the very beginning.
11. A plain reading of the F.I.R. shows that there are no clear allegations about the date, place, or manner in which the applicants allegedly induced the complainant. The agreement relied upon does not bear the signatures of the applicants, and even the complainant is not shown as a party to it. The document is vague, undated, and does not clearly mention the full details of the property. There is also no specific allegation that the applicants had any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of the alleged transaction. The dispute mainly relates to refund of money arising out of a property deal and profit-sharing arrangement, which at best gives rise to a civil dispute. The proper remedy for the complainant was to file a civil suit for recovery of money or enforcement of contract. Criminal proceedings should not be used to settle purely civil disputes or to put pressure on the other party.
2026:UHC:857
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. are not made out against the present applicants.
13. Accordingly, the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Case No.108 of 2016 under Section 420 I.P.C., as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. However, the proceedings before the trial court against accused Praveen Chawla shall continue in accordance with law.
14. Considering that the complainant is a senior citizen aged about 74 years, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar is requested to expedite the hearing and make an endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest possible, preferably within a reasonable time frame.
15. The present C-482 application is allowed.
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra J.) 11.02.2026 Mamta