Pawan Kumar Garg Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2 Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Ramavatar Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 10-11, Aishwarya Kingdom, Kachna, Raipur, Tahsil And District-Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶17

2

¶18

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

25/06/2025

¶23

Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel lawyer and Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶24

The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS with following prayer:-

¶25

Set-aside/quash the impugned FIR No. 12/2025 dated 09.01.2025 registered at Police Station, Gobra Nawapara, District-Raipur (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC.

¶26

Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioners.

¶27

Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the petitioners are owner of lands admeasuring total area 1.630 hectare (4.020 acres). Further, on 28.08.2023 the petitioners have executed an agreement to sale the aforesaid lands in favour of respondent no.

¶28

3

¶29

2/complainant Sunil Agrawal, Vijay Agrawal, Kanhaiya Agrawal, Saurabh Khetan & Prasanna Kumar Nile in respect of total 26 khasra numbers total area 14.991 acres in consideration amount of Rs. 47,00,000/- per acre and the registered sale deed was agreed to be executed within 6 months from the date of execution of agreement to sale. The aforesaid lands were recorded for industrial purpose and while entering into agreement to sale, it was agreed between the parties that the petitioners will be under obligation to convert the subject lands diverted from industrial purpose to agriculture purpose at their own cost. Further on the date of execution of agreement to sale, the petitioners have received 20% (Rs. 1,40,00,000/-) of sale consideration amount as advance money and the rest amount of Rs. 564.57 lakhs was to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed. As per the obligation and conditions of the agreement to sale dated 28.08.2023, the petitioners diverted the land from industrial purpose to agriculture purpose but respondent No. 2 and other purchasers have not shown their readiness and willingness for execution of sale deed even after diversion of the said subject lands within time stipulated in the agreement to sale and as the time was essence of the contract and the purchasers were not showing readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed within time, the agreement between the parties has cancelled automatically. Subsequently, FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2.

¶30

4

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration of FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, wherein a purely civil dispute has been given a criminal color to exert pressure on the Petitioners. It is a settled principle of law that criminal law cannot be invoked in a dispute that is essentially civil in nature, and where the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out. He further submits that petitioners have never committed any cheating or fraud with the respondent No. 2 and they were ready and willing to execute the sale deed but the respondent No. 2 has never shown any readiness to execute the registered sale deed within the time provided in the agreement to sale. He further placed his reliance in the case of in the case of " Radheyshyam and others Vs. State of Rajasthan & another " reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere non performance of agreement to sell does not amount to the offence of cheating and breach of trust and Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401 wherein it has been observed that there was no criminality on part of the accused and a civil dispute is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. He further prays for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioners.

¶32

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument made and submits that registration of FIR is just and proper as cognizable offence is made out.

¶33

5

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that from the inception of the agreement the petitioners were not having ownership of the land admeasuring area 4.020 acre for which the agreement was executed and they had played fraud with the respondent No. 2 by entering into the agreement. He further submits that the respondent No. 2 was ready and willing to execute the agreement and also paid advance 20% to the petitioners.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶36

From perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is quite vivid that petitioners and respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement and due to delay in execution of the agreement as the time was the essence of contract the contract could not be executed and thus the FIR was registered. From the said dispute, it is manifest that prima facie, the same is purely of civil nature.

¶37

At this juncture, we would like to emphasize on the need for a Magistrate to be cautious in examining whether the facts of the case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong. Attempts at initiating vexatious criminal proceedings should be thwarted early on, as a summoning order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in motion. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not

¶38

6

¶39

involve any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged.

¶40

The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions expressed grave concern in respect of allowing civil disputes to be wrongly converted into criminal proceedings.

¶41

In view of the foregoing, the FIR NO. 12/2025 dated 09.01.2025 registered at police Station, Gobra Nawapara, Distrcit Raipur against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC is quashed.

¶42

Accordingly, the CRMP is allowed.

¶43

Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶44

Rahul/ Jyoti

Pawan Kumar Garg v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Garg v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Domar Singh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakhan Bachhad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raees Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhushan Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Bharti @ Sonu Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mo. Zuber Memon Vs State of Chhattisgarh