Uttarakhand High Court
6 August vs Anoop Agarwal And Another on 6 August, 2025
2025:UHC:6896
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 470 of 2017
06 August, 2025
Harish Chandra Gururani .........Applicant
Versus
Anoop Agarwal and Another .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Hemant Pant, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Priya Mewari, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi along with Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
A.G. for the State/respondent no.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
The present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned
judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed by
the learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2016
(Harish Chandra Gururani vs. Anoop Agarwal &
Another), and the cognizance/ summoning order
dated 02.08.2016 passed by the learned 1st
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial
Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 616 of
2016, whereby summons were issued to the
applicant under Sections 420 & 421 IPC as well as
to quash the entire proceedings of the said criminal
case.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are
that on 15.09.2012, the respondent no.1 purchased
1
2025:UHC:6896
residential land from the applicant by registered
sale deed for ₹13,00,000/- through a bank draft
drawn on Allahabad Bank, Pilibhit Branch; that,
about two months before filing the complaint, while
preparing to develop the property, respondent no.1
allegedly discovered that the land purchased was
recorded as agricultural land and the measurement
of the house thereon was less than represented;
and Extra stamp duty was payable on the
purchase. Based on these allegations, respondent
no.1 filed a complaint before the Magistrate, who
recorded statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
considered oral and documentary evidence, and
found a prima facie case under Sections 420 & 421
IPC; that, being aggrieved by the same, the
applicant filed a Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2016,
which was partly allowed by the learned 2nd
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nainital,
whereby the summoning under Section 421 IPC has
been quashed but upheld the order under Section
420 IPC. Hence, this application.
3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant
would submit that respondent no.1 had earlier
complained to the SSP, Nainital. On inquiry, the
Circle Officer found no criminal ingredients and
recommended no police action; that, the
respondent, an educated person, inspected the
property and examined the khatoni prior to
purchase; that, the applicant had clearly informed
him that the building map had not been
2
2025:UHC:6896
sanctioned; that, the sale was effected after
respondent’s full satisfaction as to nature and area.
4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant
would submit that the complaint contains no
allegation of fraudulent or dishonest intention from
the inception of the transaction, which is sine qua
non for Section 420 IPC; that, at best, the dispute is
civil in nature regarding sale/purchase and
measurement, therefore, the entire criminal
proceedings is unsustainable in the eyes of law. In
support of his case, he relied upon the judgment in
the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, wherein Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that summoning an accused is
a serious matter requiring judicial application of
mind. He also relied upon the judgment of Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
quashing permissible where allegations do not
disclose essential ingredients of the offence. He also
relied the judgment of Inder Mohan Goswami v.
State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, wherein
the Apex Court has held that Section 482 Cr.P.C.
powers to be used to prevent abuse of process and
secure ends of justice.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
no. 1 vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the applicant and contended
that there are specific allegations against the
3
2025:UHC:6896
applicant pertaining to fraud and cheating.
Therefore, the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is
clearly made out. It was further submitted that the
grounds urged by the applicant involve disputed
questions of fact and issues relating to evidence,
which cannot be adjudicated while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and are
matters to be examined and decided during the
course of trial.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
7. Upon perusal of the complaint, it becomes
evident that the respondent no. 2/complainant has
failed to establish that the applicant possessed any
intention to cheat from the very inception of the
transaction. The dispute between the parties
revolves solely around the sale and purchase of
land and the alleged issues arising therefrom. The
nature of this dispute is purely civil.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet
Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC
673 has recognized that while the inherent powers
of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must
be exercised sparingly, the Court should not
hesitate to quash proceedings which are essentially
civil in nature. The Court observed:
“While exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code, the High Court has to be cautious. This
power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of
preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise4
2025:UHC:6896
to secure the ends of justice… A complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the
High Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence… the High Court should not hesitate to quash
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of
court.”
9. In the present case, the allegations
essentially pertain to a breach of contract. A mere
breach, without proof of fraudulent or dishonest
intention at the inception, does not attract criminal
liability under Section 420 IPC.
10. Further reliance was placed upon the
recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Google India Private Limited vs. Visakha
Industries & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 350, wherein
the Court reiterated the guidelines in paragraph 102
of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335, illustrating categories of cases
wherein the High Court may exercise inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse
of process of the court and to secure the ends of
justice, particularly where the allegations do not
disclose the commission of any offence or where
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala
fides.
11. Similarly, in Lalit Chaturvedi & Ors. vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 171, relying upon Mohammed Ibrahim
& Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC
751, the Court reiterated that to constitute
5
2025:UHC:6896
cheating, the following ingredients must be
satisfied:
“Deception by false/misleading representation or
dishonest concealment. Fraudulent or dishonest
inducement causing: Delivery of property; or Consent
to retention of property; or Inducing a person to do or
omit an act which they would not have done
otherwise. Resulting damage or harm to body, mind,
reputation, or property.”
12. In V.Y. Jose vs. State of Gujarat (2009)
3 SCC 78, the Court held that contractual disputes
per se should not lead to criminal prosecution
unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown
at inception.
13. In Kunti & Anr. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. (2023) 6 SCC 109, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, following its earlier decision in
Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2023) 5
SCC 360, reiterated that a mere breach of contract
does not constitute the offence of cheating unless it
is shown that the accused had a dishonest
intention at the very inception of the transaction.
The Court further held that the criminal process
cannot be misused as an instrument to pressurise
recovery in what is essentially a civil dispute
14. This principle was reiterated in Thermax
Ltd. & Ors. vs. K.M. Johny & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC
412 , wherein it was emphasized that while some
disputes may have both civil and criminal elements,
a conscious judicial application of mind is
6
2025:UHC:6896
necessary before issuing process, given the serious
consequences of a summoning order.
15. In this case, the FIR clearly shows that
the dispute is about the sale and purchase of a
property. The payment was made, but later there
were disagreements over the property’s
measurement and possession. Importantly, the
complaint does not say anywhere that the applicant
ever dishonestly convinced the complainant to give
money, which is an essential requirement to prove
the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. As
held in R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam
(2019) 16 SCC 739, cheating requires proof of
fraudulent or dishonest inducement from inception.
Likewise, in Hari Prasad Chamaria vs. Bishun
Kumar Surekha (1973) 2 SCC 823, the Court
held that mere non-performance of a promise,
absent such initial intention, creates at best civil
liability but not a criminal offence.
16. In the present case, there is no allegation
that the applicant, at any stage, dishonestly
induced the complainant to deliver any property or
part with money so as to attract the offence of
cheating under Section 420 IPC. The dispute, as
borne out from the complaint, pertains solely to a
civil disagreement regarding land measurement,
and thus the essential ingredients of Section 420
IPC are conspicuously absent.
17. In view of the facts and the nature of
7
2025:UHC:6896
allegations, the dispute, though presented in the
garb of a criminal prosecution, is in essence a civil
dispute arising out of a contractual transaction.
The complaint lacks the essential ingredients to
constitute offences under Sections 420. There is
neither any allegation of fraudulent or dishonest
inducement at the inception of the transaction, nor
any evidence of misappropriation of property
entrusted to the applicant.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court
finds that it is a fit case to exercise inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
19. Accordingly, the C-482 application is
allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated
27.03.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal
Revision No. 93 of 2016 Harish Chandra Gururani
vs. Anoop Agarwal & Anr., as well as the
cognizance/summoning order dated 02.08.2016
passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in
Criminal Case No. 616 of 2016, and the entire
proceedings of the said case, are hereby quashed.
20. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
06.08.2025
Mamta
8
2025:UHC:6896
9