No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 364 of 2020 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3/ complainant. 2. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant against the applicants in which it was alleged that applicant no. 1 was the Bhumidhar of certain land situated in Ekkar @ Bhagtanpur, Abidpur, pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar and two registered agreement to sale were executed between the parties in which it was agreed that applicant no. 1 would sell 0.205 hectares of land to the complainant in which partial sale consideration was received at the time of agreement to sale. In the FIR, it is also mentioned that on the very next day of executing the agreement to sale, applicant no. 1 started selling pieces of land in respect of which agreement to sale was executed between the parties. 3. As per the case of the complainant, several times he requested the applicant no. 1 to execute the sale deed, but, he did not execute the sale deed, as such, the complainant preferred a civil suit, which is still pending. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that since the complainant have filed a suit for specific performance for enforcing the agreement to sale, as such, an FIR was also lodged by the complainant on 28.04.2018 after filing of the suit seeking specific performance. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that before filing this FIR, complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2015. The complainant preferred revision against that order, which too was dismissed on 16.01.2019 on the pretext that the FIR has been lodged on 28.04.2018. 5. On this basis, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that it is purely a civil dispute and the allegations in the FIR relates to non-fulfilling the conditions of agreement to sale. As such, the complainant has tried to give criminal colour to purely civil dispute. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 would submit that immediately after execution of agreement to sale, the very next day, applicant no. 1 started selling pieces of land in respect of which agreement to sale was executed between the parties. As such, ingredients of Section 420 IPC are clearly made out. 7. In reply to this, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that even if the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant are accepted, then also, there was no deception from the inception as from the date of agreement to sale, no sale deed was executed in respect of other sale deeds and as such the competent civil court is seized with the matter. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. This Court finds some force in submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No. 16555 of 2019, State Vs. Mayank Prashar and Another, under Section 420, 120-B, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar is hereby quashed, qua the applicants. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 18.05.2026 Ujjwal