IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (257) CRM-M-47428-2019 (O & M) Date of decision: 06.08.2025 Amrik Singh …... Petitioner V/s Bahadur Singh and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner vide Criminal Case No.2 dated 16.05.2016 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC against the respondents has been dismissed and further for setting aside the order dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed in Criminal Revision No.75/2019 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby the revision petition against the order dated 03.04.2019 has also been dismissed. 2. As per the version of the petitioner-complainant, accused- respondent No. 1 being owner in possession of land measuring 8 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 56, situated within the revenue estate of Malkheri, Kaithal, Haryana, as per jamabandi for the year 2013-2014), had agreed to sell the same to the petitioner-complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.31,00,000/- per acre, vide agreement to sell dated SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.10 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh 29.12.2015 but refused to honour the same on the stipulated date. Subsequently, on 07.01.2016, accused/respondent No.1 in collusion with his associate i.e. accused-respondent No.2, alienated the same in favour of accused-respondent No. 3 and also criminally intimidated the petitioner- complainant. 3. In preliminary evidence, the petitioner-complainant got examined the following witnesses: Sr. No. CWs Name of the witnesses 1 CW-1 Complainant Amrik Singh. 2. CW-2 Ram Kumar Pandit, attesting witness of agreement to sell dated 29.12.2015. 3. CW-3 Jai Bhagwan, attesting witness of agreement to sell dated 5.11.2015. 4. CW-4 Sat Prakash Gupta, Deed Writer. 5. CW-5 Satnam Singh, Stamp Vendor. 6. CW-6 Shri Naresh Sharma, Notary Public. 7. CW-7 Shubh Karan, Record-keeper, who proved Ex.CW7/A. 8. CW-8 Mohit Kumar, Ahlmad to the Court of Shri Ravneet, the then learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. 4. The following documentary evidence was led by the petitioner- complainant before the Trial Court: Sr. No. Exhibits Nature of the document 1 Ex.CA Photocopy of agreement to sell dated 29.12.2015. 2. Ex.CB Photocopy of receipt of agreement to sell dated 29.12.2015. 3. Ex.CC Copy of complaint dated 12.4.2016, moved by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.10 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh 4. Ex.CD Photocopy of agreement to sell dated 5.11.2015. 5. Ex.CE Copy of Jamabandi for the year 2013-14. 6. Ex.CW-4/A and Ex.CW-4/B Photocopies of extract of register of Deed Writer 7. Ex.CW-5/A Photocopy of extract of register of Stamp Vendor. 8. Ex.CW-6/A and Ex.CW-6/B Photocopies of extract of register of Notary Public. 9. Ex.CW-7/A Photocopy of sale deed No. 6368/1 dated 7.1.2016. 10. Ex.CW-7/B Photocopy of release deed No. 6369/1 dated 7.1.2016. 5. Based on the evidence led, the complaint bearing Criminal Case No.02/COMI No.73/16.05.2016 came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 03.04.2019 (Annexur P-2) by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, Haryana. 6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner- complainant preferred a criminal revision (CRR No.75/2019), which came to be dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure P-4). 7. The aforesaid judgments (Annexure P-2 and P-4 respectively) are under challenge in the present petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contends that on 29.12.2015, an agreement was executed by accused-respondent No.1 Bahadur with the petitioner-complainant and there was also a receipt of an amount of Rs.12 lacs. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on 20.05.2016. However, on 07.01.2016, the accused-respondent No.1 sold the land to one Roshni Devi to the extent of 16 Kanals 4 Marlas, SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.10 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh which also included the land regarding which agreement was executed by accused/respondent No.1 with the petitioner-complainant and on the same day, accused/respondent No.1 executed a release deed in favour of his brother named Karnail Singh. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that the act and conduct of accused/respondent No.1 showed that he wanted to cheat the petitioner- complainant. It was further argued by the learned counsel that even earlier, an agreement dated 05.11.2015, was executed with one Jai Bhagwan with regard to the land agreed to be sold to the petitioner-complainant. A suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was also filed against the respondents. In the Civil Suit, Roshni Devi contended that there was an agreement dated 14.07.2015 with her in respect of the land regarding which agreement was executed with the petitioner-complainant. Thus, apparently, the petitioner-complainant has been cheated for which the accused- respondents are to be summoned to face Trial. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Taking the allegations to be correct, if there was an agreement to sell between the petitioner-complainant and the respondents-accused but it was not honoured by the accused, this in itself would not lead to the commission of an offence of cheating or breach of trust and the proper remedy in this regard is to seek the specific performance of the contract. Mere reneging on a promise to sell and a subsequent sell to another party in itself is not a criminal offence. If this be the case then every case of a suit SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.10 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh for specific performance would be accompanied by a criminal prosecution. Therefore, no offence under Section 406 IPC or 420 IPC is made out. 11. Further, no date and time has been mentioned by the petitioner -complainant as to when the threat to kill him was extended by the respondents-accused, therefore no offence under Section 506 IPC is made out. 12. In 'M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Limited and others', AIR 2006 (SC) 2780, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- 10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a grow- ing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to ir- retrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settle- ment. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri V. State of U.P., 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 707 :[2000(2) SCC 636], , this Court observed : "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.10 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made ac- countable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceed- ings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and ha- rassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 Criminal Procedure Code more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may. 13. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 14. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. August 06, 2025 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.08.10 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh