[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Vikas Kirola vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 20 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1987
Judgement Pronounced on:20.03.2026
Judgement Reserved on:05.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 2161 of 2023
Vikas Kirola ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 10.07.2023 as well as the cognizance and
summoning order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 4461
of 2023, State vs. Vikas Kirola and others, pending before the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. The applicant has also
prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of
FIR No. 16 of 2023, registered at Police Station Tallital, District
Nainital, under Sections 120-B, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The State's case, in brief, is that the informant/respondent no.2 lodged a
First Information Report on 20.03.2023 at Police Station Tallital,
District Nainital, alleging that the present applicant along with three co-
accused persons, namely Ganga Singh, Bhim Singh and Dhan Singh,
entered into a criminal conspiracy in relation to a land transaction. It
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2161 of 2023----------Vikas Kirola Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1987
was alleged that the accused persons induced the informant to purchase
a piece of land measuring 11 mutthis situated in Khata No. 20, Village
Suryagaon, Patti Chopra, Tehsil Nainital, and in furtherance thereof a
sale deed was executed on 23.02.2022.
3. According to the allegations made in the FIR, pursuant to the said
transaction, a total amount of approximately Rs. 20 lakhs was taken
from the informant by the accused persons. However, subsequently, it
was discovered that the actual land available on the spot measured only
about 2 mutthis, instead of the promised 11 mutthis. On this basis, it
was alleged that the accused persons had cheated the informant and
caused wrongful loss to him.
4. During investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet
No. 25 of 2023 dated 10.07.2023 against the present applicant under
Sections 120-B, 420 and 506 IPC, while the other co-accused persons
were charge-sheeted under Section 420 IPC. The learned Magistrate,
upon perusal of the charge-sheet and material collected during
investigation, took cognizance and summoned the applicant and other
accused persons vide order dated 23.08.2023 to face trial. Aggrieved by
the aforesaid charge-sheet and summoning order, the applicant has
approached this Court by way of the present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire prosecution
case, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the commission
of any offence against the applicant. The role attributed to the applicant
is limited to having suggested to the informant, who is his real brother,
to purchase the land from the co-accused persons. There is no
allegation that the applicant was the owner, vendor, or beneficiary of
the sale transaction.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2161 of 2023----------Vikas Kirola Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1987
7. It is further submitted that no part of the alleged sale consideration was
ever paid to or received by the applicant. The charge-sheet itself
reflects that the sale deed was executed between the informant and the
co-accused persons, and the applicant was not a party to the said
document. In the absence of any material showing wrongful gain or
dishonest intention on his part, the ingredients of cheating are not made
out.
8. Learned counsel also contends that the allegation of criminal
conspiracy is bald and unsupported by any material indicating prior
meeting of minds or agreement between the accused persons. The mere
relationship between the parties or presence at the time of transaction
cannot give rise to an inference of conspiracy.
9. Lastly, it is argued that the dispute essentially arises out of a land
transaction and alleged discrepancy in measurement, for which
appropriate civil remedies are available. The criminal proceedings have
been initiated only to pressurize the applicant, and continuation of the
same would amount to abuse of the process of law.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for
respondent no.2 submit that the FIR and the material collected during
investigation clearly disclose a prima facie case against the applicant. It
is alleged that the applicant actively participated in inducing the
informant to enter into the transaction and assured him regarding the
extent of land.
11. It is further submitted that the applicant being closely related to
the informant played a significant role in gaining his confidence and
facilitating the execution of the sale deed. The allegations indicate that
the applicant acted in concert with the co-accused persons and was part
of the overall design to cheat the informant.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2161 of 2023----------Vikas Kirola Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1987
12. Learned counsel contends that at the stage of cognizance and
summoning, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie
case exists, and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence.
The defence taken by the applicant involves disputed questions of fact
which can only be adjudicated during trial.
13. It is lastly submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed after due
investigation and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance.
Therefore, no interference is warranted in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction, and the application deserves to be dismissed.
14. Upon due consideration, it appears that the dispute essentially
arises out of a land transaction between the informant and the co-
accused persons. The allegations primarily relate to the execution of a
sale deed dated 23.02.2022 with respect to a piece of land situated at
Village Suryagaon, Patti Chopra, Tehsil Nainital. The informant alleges
that he was induced to purchase land measuring 11 mutthis and that a
sum of approximately Rs.20 lakhs was paid in connection with the said
transaction, whereas subsequently it was discovered that the land
available on the spot measured only about 2 mutthis.
15. However, what is significant to note is that the present applicant
was neither the recorded owner nor the vendor of the land in question.
The sale deed, which forms the basis of the transaction, was executed
between the informant and the co-accused persons. There is no material
on record to show that the applicant was a party to the sale deed or that
any part of the sale consideration was paid to him. The role attributed
to the applicant in the FIR is limited to the allegation that he suggested
to the informant, who happens to be his real brother, to purchase the
land from the other accused persons.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2161 of 2023----------Vikas Kirola Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1987
16. In criminal law, the mere act of giving a suggestion or advice to
enter into a transaction cannot by itself constitute the offence of
cheating unless it is accompanied by dishonest or fraudulent intention
at the very inception of the transaction. In the present case, the FIR and
the charge-sheet do not disclose any material to indicate that the
applicant had any such dishonest intention or that he derived any
wrongful gain from the transaction in question.
17. The allegation of criminal conspiracy levelled against the
applicant also appears to be unsupported by any substantive material.
For an offence of conspiracy, there must be material to demonstrate a
prior meeting of minds between the accused persons to commit an
illegal act. Apart from a bald assertion that the applicant acted in
concert with the co-accused persons, there is no material indicating any
agreement, overt act, or participation on the part of the applicant which
would prima facie establish the existence of a conspiracy.
18. It is also noteworthy that the notices allegedly issued by the
informant prior to lodging of the FIR reflect varying amounts stated to
have been paid in connection with the transaction. Such inconsistencies
in the version of the informant prima facie create doubt regarding the
manner in which the allegations have been developed over time. These
circumstances further reinforce the conclusion that the role of the
applicant has been sought to be introduced subsequently without any
concrete supporting material.
19. The allegations, when examined in their entirety, reveal that the
gravamen of the dispute relates to the measurement and extent of land
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2161 of 2023----------Vikas Kirola Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1987
conveyed under the sale deed. Such disputes are essentially civil in
nature and ordinarily fall within the domain of civil adjudication. The
criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a means of settling
scores in matters arising out of contractual or property transactions
unless the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offences are
clearly made out.
20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the material available on
record does not disclose any prima facie offence against the present
applicant. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against him, in
the absence of specific and credible allegations demonstrating his
involvement in the alleged acts of cheating or conspiracy, would
amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
21. Therefore, this Court finds that the case against the applicant falls
within the category of cases where the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court is required to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and
to secure the ends of justice.
ORDER
In view of the discussion made hereinabove and having regard to the nature of allegations contained in the FIR as well as the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the present applicant are not made out. The role attributed to the applicant is limited and does not disclose any material indicating dishonest intention or active participation in the alleged transaction so as to attract criminal liability.
The application is, therefore, allowed.
6Criminal Misc. Application No. 2161 of 2023----------Vikas Kirola Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1987 The charge-sheet dated 10.07.2023, the cognizance and summoning order dated 23.08.2023, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4461 of 2023, State vs. Vikas Kirola and others, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, are hereby quashed, so far as they relate to the present applicant.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:20.03.2026 NR/ 7 Criminal Misc. Application No. 2161 of 2023----------Vikas Kirola Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another-
Ashish Naithani J.