Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010020862024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./100/2024 CHIRANJEEB SARMA ROY S/O- LATE CHITTA RANJAN SARMA ROY, R/O- HOUSE NO. 88, ABC, TARUN NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, GUWAHATI-781005, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM 2:SMT. SUDHA DUGAR D/O- SRI HANUMANMAL BOTHRA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF LOAN OFFICE LANE DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 1-B ACHYUT APARTMENT NILMANI PHUKAN PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS. RICHA JHA,MR. B YADAV,MS. K AGARWAL,MR. A K RAI,MS. M BORA,MR. K BISWAKARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R K MOUR (R-2),MR. MEHUL SHAH (R-2) Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 16.06.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Mour, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State representing respondent No.1. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal complaint submitted by the respondent no. 2 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the said Court by which cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had a plot of land measuring 12.33 Lechas covered by Dag No. 611(old)/2299 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 318(old)/2323 (new) at village-2 Nong Japorigog, Mouza- Beltola, Under Dispur Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup(M). The petitioner is also an owner of a plot of land measuring 14 Lechas covered by Dag No. 709 (old)/230 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 32(old)/1614 (new) at the same place. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into a development agreement with one M/s. Four Seasons Shelter and in pursuance thereof, title Page No.# 3/7 suits were instituted between the said parties i.e. the petitioner and M/s. Four Seasons Shelter. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioner entered into an agreement with husband of respondent No.2 on 20.09.2022 for sale of the said plots of land and in pursuance to the said agreement some considerations were received from the husband of respondent No.2. Thereafter on 09.01.2023, husband of respondent No.2 had issued a notice upon the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.09.2022. Thereafter although the petitioner returned the money to the husband of the respondent No.2, R2 instituted a title suit for specific performance of the said agreement. The money was refunded by the petitioner on 21.01.2023. During the pendency of the aforesaid title suit, the husband of the respondent No.2 had requested the petitioner to enter into a sale agreement with his wife and in pursuance to the same, agreement was entered into with the respondent No.2 on 26.04.2023. The petitioner states that an injunction order was subsisting in the case filed by M/s. Four Seasons Shelter. Respondent No.2 subsequently filed the title suit for specific performance being numbered as Title Suit No. 678/2023. The petitioner states that in the said suit, the respondent No.2 had not stated about the case filed by her husband beforehand. The petitioner further states that while entering into an agreement with respondent No.2, pendency of the cases instituted against him by other parties were mentioned in the said agreement. In pursuant thereof i.e. during pendency of the aforesaid cases, the petitioner entered into a compromise agreement with M/s. Four Seasons Shelter represented by Indu Pareek, who was proprietor of the said firm and in the said compromise dated 12.10.2023 passed in Title Suit No. 444 of 2017, a decree was directed to be drawn up to the effect that land will vest in the husband of Smti. Indu Pareek, who was the proprietor of M/s. Four Seasons Page No.# 4/7 Shelter. Thereafter, the complaint case was initiated by respondent No. 2 on 13.12.2023 stating therein that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the complainant and money was taken from her on the assurance that he will settle all pending cases with M/s. Four Seasons Shelter in the Court of law. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that civil cases were going on between the parties and the respondent No.2 knew the facts of the instant case, rather in the agreement entered into with her, the information relating to all the pending cases were not only given to her but it was jotted down in the agreement itself. The respondent No.2 knew about the cases pending with M/s. Four Seasons Shelter and it cannot be discerned that respondent No.2 would not know about the compromise agreement entered into with M/s. Four Seasons Shelter. He further submits that in the title suit filed by the respondent No.2, the title suit filed by her husband at an earlier point of time was not stated in the said title suit and similarly in the complaint case, it was written that money was taken from her by cheating her. He submits that the basic ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC is not attracted in the instant case in as much as the initial deception, which is required, is not present in the instant case. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Mour, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner had assured respondent No.2 that all cases will be settled/withdrawn in the Court of law and that the agreement entered into with respondent No.2 would be performed. He also submits that in the said complaint not only ingredients of Section 420 are present but also the ingredients of Section 406 of the IPC. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Page No.# 5/7 parties, this Court gives the following findings: It is not unknown to the respondent No.2 or her husband or any other party that proceedings were going on between the petitioner and M/s. Four Seasons Shelter since 2017 and in spite of knowing the said facts respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of the aforesaid property i.e. land and in the said agreement, four number of cases were reflected which were pending in the Court of Civil Judge, No.3 as well as SDJM, No.1. However, it is also seen that in the agreement that there was a clause that the petitioner would withdraw/settle the aforesaid cases along with other cases pending in the Court within a period of 30 days from the date of execution of the said agreement. On non- performance of the said agreement, respondent No.2 filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 678/2023 praying for specific performance of the said agreement and the said case is pending till date. It is also noticed that the title suit filed by the husband of respondent No.2 for specific performance of the agreement entered into with the petitioner is also pending before the Court till date. 8. As stated above, the compromise agreement was reached between the petitioner and M/s. Four Seasons Shelter on 12.10.2023 and by the said compromise order, decree was sought to be executed vesting the land in the name of Amit Pareek, husband of the proprietor of M/s. Four Seasons Shelter. Further in the complaint case, the complainant stated that when she came to know about the compromise agreement, she obtained the copies of the same and it was further stated therein that petitioner had given assurance that land will be sold to her and the cases will be settled. In the said facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner had the initial intention to cheat the respondent No.2 rather respondent No.2 and her husband had filed title suits without disclosing Page No.# 6/7 about the other case. The entire facts of the case is before the learned Civil Courts and both the issues regarding the agreement for sale as well as the monetary issues involved therein can be dealt by the Civil Courts. It is held in Vesa Holdings Vs. State of Kerela reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293 by the Apex Court that although availability of Civil remedies may not bar initiation of Criminal proceeding in the same facts but in absence of the ingredients of the charging section, quashing can be allowed. The relevant portion is mentioned below- " It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be malafide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings." 9. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint case be quashed for the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, the CR Case No. 718/2023 is quashed and further the cognizance order dated 15.12.2023 is also quashed, as well as any other subsequent orders. Page No.# 7/7 11. The petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant