HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6741 of 2018 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To quash the summoning order dated 19.08.2015 as well as the proceedings arising out of complaint case no. 994/14 U/s 406 IPC relating to P.S. Kotwali, Raibareli, (Madan Lal Vs. Uma Devi) and the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd, Raibareli in Crl. Revision No. 148/17." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is admitted case of the private respondent that agreement to sell was executed in relation to the property owned by the applicant with a sale consideration of Rs. 23,77,000/- and amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was given. Thereafter, an amount of Rs 77,000/- was also given by the private respondent to the applicant and he also informed that after arranging rest of the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, the sale deed would be executed. However, the private respondent was unable to arrange the remaining amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. Thereafter, by way of fresh agreement to sell, the time was extended by means of the second agreement to sell dated 4.9.2010. The private respondent failed to arrange the said money and despite repeated requests Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gopesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Rohit Kumar Singh Uma Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) of the applicant, the sale deed could not be executed. It is further submitted that only with the intention to make pressure the applicant, an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed for lodging F.I.R. under Section 406 I.P.C., which was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 19.5.2014. A complaint was also made by the private respondent, in which, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., summoning order was passed by learned trial court on 19.8.2015, which was challenged before the revisional authority. The revision was also rejected by means of the order dated 4.8.2018. It is next submitted that it is an admitted case of the parties that the agreement to sell was executed between them, but the private respondent failed to arrange the money of sale consideration, as a result, the sale deed could not be executed. It is also submitted that if the applicant failed to execute the sale deed, there is a statutory right of the applicant by way of filing a suit for specific performance. Hence, the impugned proceeding is a misuse of legal provisions. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, Learned counsel for the applicant requests for quashing of the impugned proceeding. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the fact that the sale agreement was of the date 4.6.2010 and the second agreement was of the date 04.09.2010, by which, six months' time was also extended. 6. Learned A.G.A. submits that all these defenses can be raised at the appropriate stage, hence, the petition may be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is undisputed fact that agreement to sell dated 4.6.2010 was executed between the parties for selling the property in question with a sale consideration of amount of Rs. 23,77,000/-. The amount of Rs. 3,77,000/- was paid to the applicant by the private A482 No. 6741 of 2018 2 respondent. As the rest of the money could not be arranged within time, fresh agreement to sell dated 04.09.2010 was executed for giving six months' more time. But, the fund could not be arranged within time. It is evident that neither any request was made for execution of sale deed nor any suit for specific performance was filed by the private respondent. Therefore, this court is of the view that the criminal proceeding initiated by the private respondent after four years from the date of lapse of the agreement to sell is a glaring misuse of the legal provisions. 8. With the above observations, the application is allowed. The summoning order dated 19.08.2015, the proceedings of complaint case no.994/14 U/s 406 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Kotwali, Raibareli and the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Raebareli in Crl. Revision No. 148/17 are hereby quashed. December 9, 2025 Arpan A482 No. 6741 of 2018 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench