[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 28 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.869 of 2021
Rajesh Kumar and Another .........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another .........Respondents
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Azmani, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, AGA for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Judgment Reserved on 10.09.2025
Judgment deliverved on 28.11.2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of present C-482 application,
applicants have put to challenge the charge-sheet dated
15.02.2021 (Annexure-7) & cognizance order dated
13.04.2021 (Annexure-8) passed by Judicial Magistrate,
Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar and further to quash
the proceedings of Criminal Case No.159 of 2021, State
vs. Rajesh Kumar & Another, under Sections 420, 406,
504 & 506 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate,
Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
applicants are the owners of some land situated at Village
Ganguwala, Kashipur Road, Tehsil Jaspur, District
Udham Singh Nagar admeasuring 1.682 hectare. In the
year 2016, the applicants executed an agreement to sale in
favour of respondent no.2 who is a property dealer. The
said agreement was executed on 18.02.2016 and the
aforesaid property was agreed to be sold at consideration
of Rs.7 crores and the time period for the entire sale was
three years. Thereafter, around 80% of the sale
consideration was paid by respondent no.2 to the
applicants, but only around 50% of the aforesaid property
was sold. Thereafter, a dispute arose and respondent no.2
lodged an FIR dated 07.05.2020 against the applicants at
Police Station Jaspur, District U.S. Nagar, under Sections
406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC and in pursuance thereof, a
charge-sheet dated 15.02.2021 was filed by the
Investigation Agencies and a case titled as Criminal Case
No.159 of 2021, State vs. Rajesh Kumar and others was
registered. The learned trial court took cognizance against
the applicants. Hence, this application.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the case is entirely civil in nature and is lodged by
respondent no.2 to pressurize the applicants. Respondent
no.2 had earlier on the same set of fact filed an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the learned
trial court was pleased to dismiss it for want of
prosecution and this fact was concealed by respondent
no.2 in lodging the present FIR. He further submits that
civil litigation is also pending with respect to the disputed
property and this fact is also concealed in the FIR. He
states that in the proceedings of aforesaid 156(3) Cr.P.C.
application, the police authorities had filed a report that
the matter alleged is civil in nature and the parties are
long term partners. But, surprisingly in the FIR based on
same set of facts, the police has mechanically and without
proper investigation submitted the impugned charge-sheet
and the learned trial court without application of mind has
taken cognizance against the applicants.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants
vehemently argues that the entire dispute is based upon
unregistered agreement to sale and there are no
ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
Therefore, no criminal prosecution can be launched
against the applicants. He further submitted that Hon'ble
Supreme Court has time and again depreciated criminal
colour being given to civil disputes. He relied upon the
judgment of Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 823.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent/State
relying upon his counter affidavit submitted that during
the course of investigation and on the basis of statements
of witness to the agreement it came to light that the
applicants had received 80% of the sale consideration, but
had refused to register 50% of the land which was agreed
to be sold to respondent no.2. Therefore, on the basis of
investigation and statements of witnesses under Section
161 Cr.P.C. the charge-sheet was filed in pursuance of
which the learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance
against the applicants.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 relying
upon his counter affidavit submitted that in spite of
paying 80% of the sale consideration to the applicants
within permissible time, the applicants denied to execute
registry the land in the name of buyers and also
threatened the respondent no.2 of dire consequences. He
submits that this clearly shows that in the present a set of
facts, criminal breach of trust involving huge amount of
money is involved which can be only determined by a
proper trial. He further submits that Hon'ble Apex Court
in a catena of judgments has stated that High Court
should be slow in interfering in cases in which prima
facie criminal elements are present. He further submits
that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kathyayini vs.
Sidharth P.S. Reddy and others reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1428, has held that pendency of civil
proceeding on the same subject matter is no justification
to quash the criminal proceedings.
7. Having heard the rival contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of
material available on record and going through the case
laws supplied by the parties and the agreement in dispute,
this Court is of the considered opinion that although High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should quash all the civil
dispute which have been given criminal colour by the
parties, but it is also a well known and a practical fact that
sometimes criminality is also intertwined in civil dispute
particularly in dispute involving property and if there are
prima facie elements of cheating and a criminal breach of
trust the criminal proceedings should not be stayed or
quashed by this Court under extraordinary jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On perusal
of the material available on record, this Court is of the
view that the agreement in question clearly incorporates
that the sale consideration could be paid till 16.10.2016,
but the applicants refused to execute the sale deeds in
favour of respondent no.2 in spite of him being ready and
willing to pay the remaining 20% consideration as they
had already received more consideration than the property
they had registered in favour of respondent no.2. This
conduct of the applicants clearly showed that there
intentions were dishonest. Moreover, as far as the
contention of the applicants that the criminal proceedings
cannot go against the applicants as the disputed property
is already under civil litigation is wholly frivolous as
there is no such law. My view is further fortified by the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kathyayini (supra). The relevant para is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"19. We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution
during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such
bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under
criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit.
Learned senior counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy has rightly
placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above
submission. In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.3,
this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the
position. The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is
extracted below:
"8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very
same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as
well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil
remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from
setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law."
8. In the present case in hand, there certainly
exists a prima facie case against the applicants, therefore,
this Court is not inclined to use inherent powers vested
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
28.11.2025
Ravi
