Chattisgarh High Court
Yashsvi Parakh vs Santosh Sharma on 3 April, 2025
2025:CGHC:15798
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1175 of 2025
Yashsvi Parakh S/o Kantilal Parakh Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 66, Malviya
Nagar, Durg (C.G.) (Complainant)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Santosh Sharma S/o Lt. Banjrang Sharma Aged About 59 Years R/o Kadambari
Nagar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Accused)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, District Magistrate Durg (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Pranjal Shukla, PL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
03.04.2025
1. Present petition filed under Section 528 of the CrPC is against the order
dated 29.01.2025 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, CG in
Criminal Revision-287 of 2023, whereby the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by
the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section
156(3) of the CrPC is affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an Agreement between the parties was
executed on 15.03.2016 to sell the land of Khasra No.180/41, area 3,000 sft
situated at village-Sikola, Tahsil and District-Durg, for total consideration
Crmp1175 of 2025
amount of Rs.11 lacs. Respondent-1 has obtained Rs.10 lacs out of the total
consideration amount in three installments, on 15.03.2016, 24.03.2016, and
31.03.2016 but the sale deed of the said land could not be executed. Since
respondent-1 has not executed the sale deed, petitioner had filed an
application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Durg, which has been dismissed by the learned CJM Durg vide
order dated 02.06.2023, holding that the dispute between the parties is purely
a contractual dispute, and Civil in nature, and there is no ground to proceed
with the complaint made by the petitioner.
3. The Order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Durg was challenged by the petitioner by filing a CRR-287 of 2023 before the
learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which is also dismissed on
29.01.2025, and the same is under challenge in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from the very
beginning, respondent-1 was having intention to cheat the petitioner, and not to
execute the sale deed in his favour, and has obtained consideration amount of
Rs.10 lacs in three installments, which shows his fraudulent act. It has also
been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-1
though has disclosed that there are three co-sharers of the land, and he
obtained their consent to sell the land in favour of the petitioner but in fact,
there is no consent obtained by him, and ultimately, he is evading registration
of the sale deed, despite having obtained advance amount of Rs.10 lacs from
him. Therefore, the ingredients of cheating are there in the complaint made by
the petitioner and the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as the
revisional court are liable to be set aside.
Crmp1175 of 2025
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that learned trial
Court as well as revisional Court has considered the dispute between the
parties is contractual in nature, and it is a Civil dispute.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed
with the petition.
7. From perusal of documents annexed with the petition, it is quite vivid that
there was an agreement between the parties on 15.03.2016 for sale of the land
of Khasra No.180/41, area 3,000 sft, situated at village-Sikola, Tahsil and
District-Durg for total consideration of Rs.11 lacs. It is alleged by the petitioner
that despite obtaining the advance amount of Rs.10 lacs in three installments,
the sale deed was not executed by respondent-1. It also appears that when
the agreement between the parties was executed, the parties are under
obligation to obey the terms and conditions of the agreement, and if there is
violation of any terms and conditions of the agreement, they can very well
execute before the competent Civil Court by filing appropriate civil suit under
the relevant laws. There may be so many reasons for not executing the sale
deed, and that has to be proved by leading cogent evidence before the
competent Civil Court.
8. In the matter of Thermax Limited and others Vs KM Johny and
others, 2011 13 SCC 412, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope
of interference in the contractual matter in criminal jurisdiction, and in para 34
and 37, Hon'ble Court has held that:
"34.The principles enunciated from the above-quoted decisions
clearly show that for proceedings under Section 156(3) of the
Crmp1175 of 2025
Code, the complaint must disclose relevant material
ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34
IPC. If there is a flavour of civil nature, the same cannot be
agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. If there is huge
delay and in order to avoid the period of limitation, it cannot be
resorted to a criminal proceeding.
37. It is settled law that the essential ingredients for an offence
under Section 420, which we have already extracted, is that
there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person.
We have already quoted the relevant allegations in the
complaint and perusal of the same clearly shows that no such
dishonest intention can be seen or even inferred inasmuch as
the entire dispute pertains to contractual obligations between
the parties. Since the very ingredients of Section 420 are not
attracted, the prosecution initiated is wholly untenable. Even if
we admit that allegations in the complaint do make out a
dispute, still it ought to be considered that the same is merely a
breach of contract and the same cannot give rise to criminal
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction.
Inasmuch as there are number of documents to show that
appellant-Company had acted in terms of the agreement and in
a bona fide manner, it cannot be said that the act of the
appellant-Company amounts to a breach of contract."
Crmp1175 of 2025
9. In view of the above, and also in light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Thermax (supra), I do not find any good
ground to interfere with the impugned order.
10. In the result, the petition fails, and it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
padma
