Uttarakhand High Court
C528/437/2026 on 17 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1889
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C-528 No.437 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Satyawali and Ms. Gyanmati Kushwala, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.73 of 2022, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.71 of 2022. By the said order dated 22.03.2022, the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for registration of an F.I.R. was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur alleging that the applicant had entered into an unregistered agreement 2026:UHC:1889 with respondent no.3 for purchase of a piece of land bearing Khasra No.67, admeasuring about 300 sq. feet, for a total sale consideration of ₹4,50,000/-. It is submitted that out of the said amount, a sum of ₹2,70,000/- was paid by the applicant to respondent no.3 as advance consideration. However, despite repeated requests made by the applicant, respondent no.3 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant in terms of the agreement.
5. It is further submitted that subsequently the applicant came to know that respondent no.3 had intentionally misrepresented himself to be the owner of the disputed land and had induced the applicant to part with the aforesaid amount on the basis of such misrepresentation.
6. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, without properly appreciating the facts and allegations made in the complaint, rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 22.03.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.73 of 2022 before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, but the revisional court also dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2022.
7. It is contended that both the courts 2026:UHC:1889 below failed to appreciate that the allegations made in the complaint clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences, particularly of cheating and misrepresentation. It is further argued that the courts below erred in treating the matter as purely civil in nature without considering that the conduct of respondent no.3, as alleged in the complaint, prima facie attracts criminal liability. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submitted that the courts below have rightly examined the material placed on record and have passed well-reasoned orders. It is submitted that both the trial court as well as the revisional court have recorded a categorical finding that the dispute between the parties arises out of an unregistered agreement relating to sale of land and essentially pertains to enforcement of contractual obligations, which is civil in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant is attempting to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute relating to execution of a sale deed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned orders, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate, while 2026:UHC:1889 rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has observed that the allegations in the complaint primarily relate to non-performance of an agreement to sell, for which the appropriate remedy available to the applicant is to institute civil proceedings for enforcement of the agreement or recovery of money. The Magistrate further recorded that the complaint did not disclose such circumstances which would necessitate registration of an F.I.R. and investigation by the police.
10. The revisional court, while affirming the order of the Magistrate, has also held that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of an unregistered agreement to sell and that the applicant has adequate remedy before the civil court.
11. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by both the courts below, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
12. Consequently, the present C-528 application is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
MAM Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2 TA 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0 (Alok Mahra, J.) 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, 17.03.2026 serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d RANI 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66 dd26690a191648ab5d8dd00 Mamta 4ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.03.19 14:58:05 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1889