Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Juyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr on 14 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.185 of 2021
Dinesh Juyal ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Girish Ch. Joshi, learned A.G.A, for the State.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been
filed by the Applicant, Dinesh Juyal, seeking quashing of the
charge sheet dated 31.08.2020 and the consequent
cognizance/summoning order dated 21.12.2020, passed by the
learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in
Criminal Case No. 4526 of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 0104 of 2019,
Police Station Clement Town, Dehradun, under Section 420 IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, Respondent No. 2
(complainant) alleged that the Applicant fraudulently represented
himself to be in possession of rights to sell certain parcels of land
situated at Graf Bharuwala Grant, District Dehradun. The
Applicant allegedly showed forged documents, including a forged
agreement with one Tahira S. Bimbet, the landowner, and induced
the complainant to enter into an agreement to purchase the land for
Rs. 43 crores.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 185 of 2021, Dinesh JuyalVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6685
3. The complainant purportedly paid an amount of Rs. 6.25
crores to the Applicant through cheques and RTGS in instalments
between April and July 2019. It is alleged that the Applicant neither
transferred the said amount to the actual landowner nor completed
the sale, thereby committing the offences of cheating and fraud.
4. Subsequently, a compromise agreement dated 11.10.2019
was executed between the Applicant and the complainant. As per
the terms of compromise, Rs. 4.22 crores paid to Tahira Bimbet by
the Applicant was to be adjusted by the complainant, and the
Applicant was to return Rs. 1.30 crores to the complainant while
retaining Rs. 72 lakhs as facilitation fees.
5. The Applicant claims to have paid further amounts by
RTGS and cheques to the complainant in December 2019, January
2020, and March 2020, in terms of the compromise.
6. Initially, FIR No. 0104 of 2019 was registered under
Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. After investigation, Sections
467, 468, and 471 were dropped, and a charge-sheet was filed under
Section 420 IPC alone.
7. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on 21.12.2020 and
summoned the Applicant to face trial under Section 420 IPC. The
Applicant now seeks quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings
on the grounds that the dispute is civil in nature and stands
resolved through compromise.
8. It is contended that the dispute arose out of a land
transaction involving alleged breach of agreement and cannot be
termed criminal. The FIR was lodged on account of a
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 185 of 2021, Dinesh JuyalVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6685
misunderstanding, which later stood resolved by way of a detailed
compromise dated 11.10.2019.
9. The learned Counsel submits that the compromise clearly
settled all disputes. The Applicant retained only the facilitation
charges and undertook to return the balance amount, part of which
had already been paid. Thus, there was no dishonest inducement or
intention to cheat from the inception.
10. It is argued that the FIR is a misuse of criminal law to
pressurize the Applicant in what is essentially a civil-commercial
disagreement. The FIR and charge sheet lack the basic ingredients
of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the IPC, particularly in
the absence of an initial dishonest intention or wrongful gain.
11. It is further urged that the complainant never disputed the
compromise nor initiated any civil suit. Instead, the FIR was an
afterthought to harass the Applicant despite amicable resolution.
12. In opposition, learned A.G.A. submits that the charge sheet
has been filed after thorough investigation, during which the
complainant and material witnesses, including landowner Tahira
Bimbet and the concerned Sub-Registrar, supported the
prosecution version and confirmed that the Applicant had
misrepresented facts and forged documentation.
13. It is contended that the Applicant induced the complainant
to transfer Rs. 6.25 crores by showing a forged agreement, and in
the process caused wrongful loss of Rs. 1.98 crores to the
complainant and wrongful gain to himself.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 185 of 2021, Dinesh JuyalVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6685
14. The compromise relied upon by the Applicant was never
submitted during investigation nor placed before the learned
Magistrate. Moreover, the genuineness and execution of the
compromise remain disputed.
15. Learned A.G.A. argues that the matter involves serious
financial deceit and is not a simple contractual dispute. The offence
under Section 420 IPC is not compoundable and cannot be quashed
merely on the ground of alleged private settlement.
16. It is further submitted that there is prima facie material
disclosing the commission of an offence and that the Trial Court
has rightly taken cognizance after due consideration of the case
diary and supporting statements under Section 161 CrPC.
17. The scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is well circumscribed by the parameters laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where illustrative categories were
framed to justify quashing of proceedings in exceptional cases.
However, inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and only in cases where the complaint or FIR does
not disclose any offence or is manifestly attended with mala fide.
18. In the present case, the allegation is that the Applicant
executed a sale agreement in respect of land purportedly owned by
one Tahira Bimbet, without actual authority, and induced the
complainant to part with ₹6.25 crores. It is further alleged that the
Applicant relied upon forged documents and did not remit the
consideration to the actual landowner, resulting in wrongful loss to
the complainant and corresponding wrongful gain.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 185 of 2021, Dinesh JuyalVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6685
19. The claim that the dispute is civil in nature does not ipso
facto exclude criminal liability, particularly where there is material
to suggest that the inducement was dishonest from the inception.
The essence of the offence under Section 420 IPC lies in the
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise
or representation. Whether such intention existed at the inception
of the transaction is a matter of evidence and cannot be adjudicated
conclusively at the stage of quashing.
20. The charge sheet dated 31.08.2020 was submitted after due
investigation and not in a mechanical manner, as alleged. The
Investigating Officer found sufficient material to proceed under
Section 420 IPC, and the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance
on 21.12.2020. There is no procedural infirmity or jurisdictional
error apparent on record.
21. The substantial financial implications of the alleged deceit,
coupled with the involvement of public trust and commercial
integrity, militate against quashing the proceedings at the
threshold. While a genuine private settlement between the parties
may be considered by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage, it
cannot serve as a ground to prematurely terminate a prosecution
under Section 420 IPC.
22. At this stage, this Court is not called upon to assess the
adequacy or credibility of the evidence in the charge sheet, but only
to determine whether the material, taken at face value, discloses a
cognizable offence. The charge sheet, witness statements, and
transaction history prima facie establish grounds for trial, and it
cannot be said that no offence is made out.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 185 of 2021, Dinesh JuyalVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6685
ORDER
In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find
any merit in the present application under Section 482 CrPC.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
14.07.2025
SB
SHIKSHA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822f
BINJOLA
bd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B52
83D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.07.31 11:49:38 +05’30’
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 185 of 2021, Dinesh JuyalVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.