HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5444 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Priyanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava and Sri Pranjal Kesarwani, learned counsel for the respondent and Sri R.K.Singh, learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by Court of District and Session Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Revision No. 05 of 2025 (Shyam Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of UP & Others) and order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Mirzapur in Complaint case No. 16448 of 2024 (Shyam Kumar Vs. Anuradha & Others). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an oral agreement to sell was entered into between the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3, whereby it was agreed that the respondents would execute a sale deed of their house in favour of the petitioner after a period of three years. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to respondent no. 2 through RTGS. Thereafter, the respondents allegedly demanded an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, which was also paid by the petitioner in cash. However, despite receipt of the aforesaid amounts, neither was the sale deed executed nor was the money returned even after the lapse of the agreed period. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 16448 of 2024 (Shyam Kumar vs. Anuradha and others). The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the dispute between the parties pertains to a monetary transaction arising out of an agreement for sale of property and is purely civil in nature. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Priyanshu Mishra, Vaishali Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Brajesh Kumar Solanki, G.A., Pranjal Kesarwani Shyam Kumar Jaiswal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 05 of 2025 (Shyam Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and others). It was contended before the revisional court that the petitioner had been cheated by the respondents, who had deliberately failed to honour the agreement. However, the said contention was not accepted. Learned counsel submitted that the revisional court failed to appreciate that the mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punit Beriwala vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others, 2025 INSC 582. It was further submitted that the act of the respondents in breaching the agreement amounts to cheating, as illustrated under Illustration (H) of Section 380. It was lastly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have erred in dismissing the application under Section 175(3) BNSS by disregarding the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punit Beriwala (supra). It was, therefore, contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is settled that a mere breach of contract may give rise to an offence of cheating only when it is shown that the intention to deceive existed at the very inception of the transaction. Such an offence can be established only if the contract allegedly breached is legally enforceable. Though, under general law, an agreement to sell is not mandatorily required to be in writing or registered, however, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, by virtue of the amendments introduced in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, through the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, an agreement to sell immovable property is required to be in writing and duly registered. 6. In the present case, the alleged agreement is purely oral and, therefore, has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. Consequently, the very foundation of the petitioner's claim becomes untenable. In absence of a legally enforceable agreement, the allegation of cheating cannot be sustained. 7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 8. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. April 28, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 5444 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad