Priya Kumari vs State Of Punjab And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2233 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Priya Kumari vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 March, 2026

CRM-M No.48510 of 2023 (O&M)                   1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M No.48510 of 2023 (O&M)
                                       Reserved on: 03.02.2026
                                       Pronounced on: 10.03.2026

Priya Kumari
                                                            ......Petitioner
                                      Versus

State of Punjab and another
                                                            ...... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:     Mr. Esh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab.
             Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

By virtue of present petition, the extraordinary jurisdiction vested

in this Court by virtue of Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, has

been invoked for quashing of FIR No.66 dated 24.07.2015, for the commission

of offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 [Sections 406, 471

and 120-B IPC added later on] of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Hariana,

District Hoshiarpur. The above mentioned FIR has been lodged at the instance

of the complainant-respondent No.2 hereinafter being referred to as

'respondent No.2' only, against the petitioner/accused, hereinafter being

referred to as 'petitioner', only

2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is

a handicap lady and the niece of the respondent No.2 who is an NRI.

According to petitioner her father 'Surinder Dass' was the real brother of the

1 of 8

respondent No.2 and that about 30 years ago the respondent No.2 had left the

country and settled in England, where he is running a business. According to

learned counsel for the petitioner at initial stage the family of the respondent

No.2 had helped him in settling abroad and subsequently the respondent No.2,

who was having cordial relations, used to visit his brothers 'Surinder Dass' and

'Govind Dass', and their respective families, and that out of love and affection

he even financially helped his brothers but subsequently due to some

disagreement with regard to partition of ancestral property relation between the

respondent No.2 and his brother deteriorated.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in

the year 2015 the respondent No.2 had submitted a complaint against the

petitioner, and another complaint against the brother of petitioner namely

'Pardeep Kumar', before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur and

that the inquiries in the above mentioned complaints were initiated. According

to learned counsel for the petitioner subsequently by consolidating all the

allegations levelled in the above mentioned two complaints, the respondent

No.2 filed another complaint on 23.07.2015 before the Senior Superintendent

of Police, Hoshiarpur and on account of political interventions the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur issued a direction to the SHO concerned

to register the FIR, and the same has been lodged without looking into the fact

that there was no merit in the allegations contained in the complaint.

4. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the allegations contained in the FIR are against several persons, and that

2 of 8

the allegations qua petitioner are that she wanted to run a business and for that

purpose she demanded money. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the

respondent No.2 has claimed that he paid Rs.20,00,000/- through cheques to

the petitioner, and that subsequently in the year 2010 the petitioner applied for

gas agency and for that purpose he transferred Rs.18,00,000/- in the name of

petitioner and also executed the lease deed of his two shops in her favour.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner the allegations of the

respondent No.2 against the petitioner are that she had assured the respondent

No.2 that he would have a share in the gas agency, but neither she introduced

the respondent No.2 as a partner in the gas agency nor returned the money, and

thus the respondent No.2 claimed that he has cheated by the petitioner.

5. With regard to above mentioned contention, the learned counsel

for the petitioner has contended that the bare contents of the FIR, itself, shows

that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner is with regard

to return of money and for that purpose the remedy available to the respondent

No.2 is the civil remedy only. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the

civil remedy has already been availed by the respondent No.2 by filing a civil

suit but the civil suit filed by the respondent No.2 has already failed. It has

also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to

present case when petitioner had approached the Court for anticipatory bail a

pre-condition was imposed upon the petitioner to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the

respondent No.2, which was paid accordingly. Qua above mentioned aspect

the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the above mentioned

3 of 8

facts finds mention in the statement of the respondent No.2 recorded before the

Civil Court.

6. While claiming that dispute between the petitioner and the

respondent No.2 is purely a dispute of civil nature, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has contended that no criminality can be attributed to the petitioner

and that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

7. The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for

the respondent No.2-the respondent No.2 has controverted the above

mentioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 that the present case does not pertains to a dispute of civil

nature, and that in the case in hand the act and conduct of the petitioner, vis-a-

vis her family members, makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner had an

intention of cheating right from the very beginning and she has usurped huge

amount of money, i.e. more than Rs.38,00,000/- and also two shops of the

respondent No.2 on the false pretext of introducing him as partner in the gas

agency.

8. According to learned counsel for the respondent No.2 the

allegations of the petitioner with regard to return of Rs.10,00,000/- to the

respondent No.2, supports the claim of the respondent No.2 that money was

received by the petitioner from the respondent No.2. As per learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 this issue has to be decided during the course of trial

as to whether the petitioner had cheated the respondent No.2 or not, and that at

this stage once there is prima facie evidence with regard to payment of money

4 of 8

by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner, the FIR cannot be quashed merely on

the claim of the petitioner that the disputes between the parties is of civil

nature. By alleging that the present petition has got no merit the learned State

counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has sought

for dismissal of present petition.

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. As far as the present petition is concerned, at the very outset, it is

pertinent to mention here that the contents of the FIR qua the allegations

against the petitioner makes it abundantly clear that the respondent No.2

initially paid money to the petitioner when she requested for the same for

starting a business. There is no allegations that at that point of time, when

Rs.20,00,000/- were paid by the respondent No.2, to the petitioner, there was

any kind of understanding with regard to creation of a share of the respondent

No.2 in the business being run by the petitioner. Thus, at the most with regard

to above mentioned transactions the dispute between the parties can be with

regard to return of money. However, that dispute, too, is subject to the

condition as to whether at the time of payment of money by the respondent

No.2 to the petitioner, there was any understanding for return of the same or it

was simply a gift by an uncle to his niece. However, whatsoever it may be, the

only right which can be claimed by the respondent No.2 is the return of money

and such right is essentially a right, which can be adjudicated upon by a Civil

Court only. As far as the subsequent allegations with regard to partnership in

gas agency are concerned, two aspects are involved therein:-

5 of 8

i) that with regard to lease of shops by the respondent No.2 to the

petitioner there is no allegations of cheating. Otherwise also if

there is dispute with regard to payment of rent or return of

possession by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, the only

course available to the respondent No.2 is to file a civil suit for

eviction;

ii) that with regard to allegation for payment of money to the

petitioner and denial of share of the respondent No.2 in the gas

agency, it is relevant to note that with regard to above

mentioned aspect firstly, there is no written agreement between

the parties and secondly, again if there was oral agreement

between the petitioner & the respondent No.2, and the

petitioner has failed to fulfill that agreement the only course

available to the respondent No.2 is to file the civil suit.

11. As a sequel to above mentioned observations it is hereby observed

that factual matrix of the present case shows that with regard to allegations

against the petitioner the only remedy available to the respondent No.2 is the

civil remedy and it is apparent that a dispute of civil nature has been given a

colour of criminal case.

12. With regard to situation similar to the present one the Hon'ble

supreme Court of India in the case of 'Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.' AIR 2024 (SC) 4531, has observed that

prosecution of cases on charges of criminal breach of trust for failure to pay

6 of 8

the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. As per

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India there can be civil remedy for the non-payment

of the consideration but no criminal complaint is maintainable.

13. Similarly, in the case of 'Veer Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar

Agarwal and another', 2007(3)RCR (Criminal) 960, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India has observed that non-payment or under payment of the price of

the goods by itself does not amount to commission of offence of cheating or

criminal breach of trust.

14. In the case of 'Hridaya Ranjan Verma and others Vs. State of

Bihar and another', 200(4) SCC 168, it has been observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India that it depends upon the intentions of the accused at

the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but

this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. According to Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution

for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intentions are shown right at the

beginning of the transaction. It has been further observed that to hold a person

guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest

intention at the time of making the promise, and on mere failure to keep the

promise subsequently, this inference cannot be drawn that he had culpable

intention right at the beginning.

15. Similarly in the case of 'Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R.

Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.' 2025(2) PLR 107, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India has observed that mere failure to pay money in a civil

7 of 8

dispute does not constitute a criminal offence and that filing of FIR in a civil

dispute to recover money amounts to an abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has further observed that civil dispute should be resolved

through appropriate remedy and not through criminal proceedings.

16. Similar issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of 'M/s Shikhar Chemicals Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

& anr.' Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11445 of 2025. In the above

mentioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that criminal

proceedings in a case of pure civil dispute amounts to abuse of process of law.

17. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above

mentioned factors it is hereby observed that the present case is squarely

covered by the principles of law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the cases discussed above, and therefore, it is hereby held that the

filing of FIR and subsequent report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on the basis of

above said FIR are nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, it is hereby

observed that the present petition has got merit and deserves to be allowed.

The same is hereby allowed accordingly and as a consequence thereof the FIR

mentioned above and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and all the

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 10.03.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

8 of 8