[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Rajendra Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 19 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11369
Judgment Reserved on: 19.11.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 19.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2111 of 2023
Rajendra Singh and Another ......Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Presence: Mr. Shakib Husain, learned counsel for the Applicants.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicants,
Rajendra Singh and Smt. Jagwati, seeking quashing of the criminal
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1887 of 2023 arising out of Case
Crime No.181 of 2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar,
Roorkee, District Haridwar, under Sections 406, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, as well as the cognizance order dated 10.10.2023
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee.
2. The dispute between the parties arises out of a registered
agreement to sell dated 08.08.2022 executed between the Applicants and
the private Respondent in respect of a plot of land situated at Roorkee.
As per the agreement, the sale deed was required to be executed on or
before 30.04.2023.
3. According to the State's case, the Respondent No.2, paid a total
sum of ₹. 15,00,000/- to the Applicants towards consideration for the
said transaction. It is alleged that despite receipt of the said amount, the
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.2111 of 2023, Rajendra Singh & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11369
Applicants failed to execute the sale deed and, upon being approached
for return of the money, abused and threatened the complainant.
4. On the basis of these allegations, the private Respondent lodged an
FIR dated 05.04.2023 at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee,
which was registered as Case Crime No. 181 of 2023 under Sections
406, 504 and 506 IPC.
5. During the investigation, the statements of the complainant and
other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet dated 24.04.2023 was
submitted against the Applicants under the aforesaid sections.
6. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District
Haridwar,upon perusal of the charge-sheet and the accompanying
material, took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 10.10.2023
and summoned the Applicants to face trial.
7. Aggrieved by the initiation and continuance of the criminal
proceedings and the cognizance order, the Applicants have invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of the proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the entire
dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of an
agreement to sell, and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated
with an ulterior motive to pressurize the Applicants for the return of
money.
9. It was contended that, as per the registered agreement dated
08.08.2022, the date fixed for execution of the sale deed was 30.04.2023,
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.2111 of 2023, Rajendra Singh & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11369
whereas the FIR has been lodged prematurely on 05.04.2023, even
before the expiry of the contractual period.
10. Learned counsel argued that the Applicants were always ready and
willing to perform their part of the agreement and had communicated
their willingness to the complainant through notices. It was further
submitted that the Applicants had also marked their presence at the office
of the Sub Registrar on the relevant dates.
11. It was urged that the essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 406 IPC are not made out, as the amount received was part of a
contractual transaction and there was no dishonest intention at the
inception of the agreement.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC are vague and omnibus in nature and have
been levelled only to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil
dispute.
13. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the Applicants
contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court and that this is a fit case for exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings
and the cognizance order.
14. Per Contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the application and
submitted that the FIR, statements recorded during investigation, and the
charge-sheet disclose commission of cognizable offences against the
Applicants.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.2111 of 2023, Rajendra Singh & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11369
15. It was argued that the Applicants have admittedly received a
substantial amount of money from the complainant and have failed to
execute the sale deed, and that the allegations of misappropriation, abuse
and criminal intimidation cannot be brushed aside at the threshold.
16. Learned counsel submitted that the defence set up by the
Applicants regarding readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed
raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C..
17. It was further contended that the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance after due application of mind and that no jurisdictional error
or perversity is shown in the impugned cognizance order.
18. On these grounds, learned counsel for the State and the
Respondent No. 2 prayed that the application be dismissed.
19. This Court has considered the rival submissions and has carefully
perused the FIR, the charge-sheet, the statements recorded during
investigation, and the impugned cognizance order. The scope of
interference under Section 482 of the Code is well settled and is to be
exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only in cases where
the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of the Court or where the allegations do not disclose the
commission of any offence even prima facie.
20. At the outset, it must be noted that the allegations in the FIR are
not confined merely to breach of contractual obligations. The
complainant has specifically alleged entrustment of money, failure to
honour the transaction, and subsequent conduct, including abuse and
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.2111 of 2023, Rajendra Singh & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11369
criminal intimidation. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or
not is a matter of evidence, but at this stage, they cannot be said to be
inherently improbable or absurd.
21. The contention of the Applicants that the dispute is purely civil in
nature cannot be accepted at this stage. The mere existence of a civil
remedy or the pendency of a civil dispute does not, by itself, bar criminal
proceedings if the factual allegations disclose the essential ingredients of
a criminal offence. The Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, is
not required to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the
allegations, nor to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence.
22. The defence sought to be raised by the Applicants, including their
alleged readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed, issuance of
notices, and presence at the Sub Registrar's office, raises disputed
questions of fact. Such matters fall squarely within the domain of trial
and cannot be examined or adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482
of the Code.
23. So far as the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, the
question whether the amount paid under the agreement constituted
entrustment, and whether there was dishonest misappropriation or
conversion, are matters which require an appreciation of evidence. At
this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the ingredients of the
offence are wholly absent.
24. The allegations under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, as contained in
the FIR and reflected in the material collected during investigation, also
cannot be discarded at the threshold. Whether the ingredients of these
offences are ultimately established is a matter to be tested during trial.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.2111 of 2023, Rajendra Singh & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11369
25. The impugned cognizance order dated 10.10.2023 reflects that the
learned Magistrate has applied a judicial mind to the police report and
the accompanying material. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or
jurisdictional infirmity in the said order, warranting interference in the
exercise of inherent powers.
26. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not
fall within the exceptional categories where the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised to quash the criminal
proceedings or the cognizance order.
ORDER
The Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.
Any interim protection granted to the Applicants during the
pendency of the application stands vacated.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
19.12.2025
Arti
Criminal Misc. Application No.2111 of 2023, Rajendra Singh & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another-
Ashish Naithani J.
