Sachin Agrawal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 is illegal and arbitrary and has been passed without application of judicial mind.

¶10

Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory where cognizable offences are disclosed. Although the learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that the dispute is purely civil, the dispute, according to the revisionist, is not purely civil but involves clear criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate ignored documentary evidence, bank transactions, and medical records.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist placed heavy reliance on the order passed by this Court in Niyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. , 2025 AHC 54086, passed in Application under Section 482 No. 44552 of 2024 . However, the facts and circumstances of the said case are entirely different. It is settled law that each criminal case has to be decided on its own facts, and the said order does not relate to the present case.

¶12

The basis of the complaint is an unregistered agreement for the sale and purchase of a house dated 19.12.2022. An unregistered agreement relating to immovable property has weak legal significance. The

¶13

CRLR No. 745 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

complainant/revisionist filed an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., 2023, before the learned trial court stating that the complainant Sachin Agarwal/revisionist had entered into a contract with Sanjeev Kumar Sharma for the purchase of a three-storeyed house measuring 57 square metres for an amount of Rs. 26 lakhs. He paid an initial advance of Rs. 2 lakhs on 19.12.2022 in the presence of witnesses.

¶16

It is further stated that Raju Gupta, son of late Jagdish Swarup Gupta, a neighbour of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, acted as a broker and witness to the transaction. On the asking of Raju Gupta, the revisionist paid Rs. 2 lakhs by cheque of Punjab National Bank, which was credited to the account of Mayank Sharma, son of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, on 19.12.2022. He further transferred Rs. 1 lakh to the account of Mayank Sharma on the same date. Thereafter, on 05.04.2023, he transferred Rs. 2 lakhs to the account of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma.

¶17

The revisionist stated that after paying a total amount of Rs. 7 lakhs, he and his wife requested Sanjeev Kumar Sharma to receive the remaining amount and execute the registered sale deed, but he kept delaying the execution on one pretext or another. On a later date, when the revisionist and his wife went to Sanjeev Kumar Sharma’s house, he allegedly stated that he had settled the sale of the house for Rs. 35 lakhs and would no longer sell it for Rs. 26 lakhs. When the revisionist demanded the return of Rs. 7 lakhs, Mayank Sharma allegedly stated that the amount had been placed on interest.

¶18

It is further stated that on 14.07.2025, when the revisionist went to Sanjeev Kumar Sharma’s house, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma became seriously annoyed. As a result, the revisionist’s wife went into severe depression and allegedly consumed poisonous material that was in her purse. These are the contents of the F.I.R.

¶19

The learned trial court passed a specific order holding that the transaction between the parties relates to non-execution of a sale deed and that the nature of the dispute is purely civil. The trial court found that no cognizable offence was made out. The dispute pertains to recovery of money arising out of a financial transaction relating to the sale and

¶20

CRLR No. 745 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

purchase of a house based on an unregistered agreement.

¶23