Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26201 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 485 of 2025 Revisionist :- Devendra Kumar Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Pathak,Sachin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sachin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has purchased Gata No.29, having an area of about 0.0948 hectare, situated at Village Charsanda Mafi, Pargana and Tehsil Nanpara, District Bahraich in consideration of Rs.6,83,333/-, out of which 5,00,000/- was paid through Cheque No.77076 from the bank account of his wife Smt. Kanchan but since the same was not credited to the bank account of the private respondent, therefore the revisionist had given another Cheque No.582778, which was credited and the remaining amount of Rs.1,83,333/- has been paid in cash. Thereafter the revisionist had applied for mutation and after considering the objection filed by the private respondent, the mutation was allowed. Thereafter the respondent no.2 has filed suit for cancellation of sale deed before the civil court, which is pending. Thus, on the one hand, the private respondents have received the total sale consideration and executed the sale deed in favour of the revisionist but on the other hand they are harassing the revisionist by filing objection before the mutation court and a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed, in which an interim order has also been granted in favour of the private respondents. 3. He further submits that in view of above harassment of the revisionist, the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for lodging an F.I.R. against the respondents as the same was not being lodged by the concerned police station. Considering the same, a complaint case was registered by the trial court and after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.PC., the summoning order dated 11.08.2023 was passed. The said order was challenged by the private respondents in revision before the sessions court and by means of the order dated 13.02.2025, the revision has been allowed setting aside the summoning order dated 11.08.2023 and the matter has been remanded back to the trial court without considering the objection and the grounds raised by the revisionist. 4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the documents placed on record of this revision, it appears that the order of mutation was passed in favour of the revisionist, claiming transfer of land on the basis of a sale deed executed by private respondent, after considering the objection of the private respondents. Thereafter the suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed by the private respondents on several grounds including that the sale deed has not been executed by them and no sale consideration has been paid to them. The learned trial court, without considering as to whether offence under Section 420 IPC is made out or not and the suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by private respondents, passed the order dated 11.08.2023 summoning the appellant. 5. On being challenged, the revisional court after considering that the trial court has passed the order without considering the necessary ingredients of Section 420 IPC and that the civil suit for cancellation of sale deed for the land in dispute is pending between the parties has set aside the summoning order and remanded the matter back to the trial court to pass fresh order. 6. The learned trial court has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta versus Ashutosh Gupta;(2010) 6 SCC 562, in which it has been held that where there is issue of sale and purchase of properties in a fraudulent manner, it would be of civil nature and not criminal. It has also considered that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Ratnaswami versus KC Palanisamy and Others; (2013) 6 SCC 740 has held that there is growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases and therefore it is the duty of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim versus State of Bihar passed in Criminal Case No.1695 of 2009, the Court has held that the criminal court should be cautious in cases in which suit of civil nature is being tried to be converted into criminal for undue pressure. 7. On a query being put, learned counsel for the revisionist also failed to point out as to how the ingredients of Section 420 IPC can be said to be made out in the case in hand. 8. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the order passed by the revisional court as the same has been passed by a reasoned and speaking order and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. The revision is misconceived and lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Akanksha Sri/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench