2026:UHC:3881 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C5 2 8 / 2 0 9 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present C-528 application has been filed to quash the chargesheet and impugned summoning/cognizance dated 14.01.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.100 of 2025 pending before the court of learned 5th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that the present applicant had shown certain private plots to the complainant and had executed an agreement to sell in respect thereof, pursuant to which the complainant allegedly paid a total sum of ₹23,50,000/- to the applicant. It is alleged that despite receipt of the aforesaid amount, the applicant neither executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant nor returned the money and, subsequently, the complainant came to know that the plots in question did not belong to the applicant; that, on the basis of the said allegations, after 2026:UHC:3881 completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the applicant under Section 420 I.P.C., upon which the learned trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of an alleged breach of terms of an agreement relating to sale of immovable property; that, at best, the allegations may give rise to a claim for specific performance, recovery of money or damages before the competent civil court; that, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. are conspicuously absent inasmuch as there is no material to demonstrate that the applicant had any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction; that, mere non- execution of the sale deed or failure to fulfil contractual obligations would not constitute the offence of cheating; that, criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a pressure tactic for settlement of civil disputes or recovery of money, therefore, the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and submit that the material collected during investigation prima facie 2026:UHC:3881 discloses commission of cognizable offence against the applicant; that, the allegations in the F.I.R. and the material available on record indicate that the applicant induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money despite having no lawful title or ownership over the plots in question and, therefore, the element of dishonest intention from the very inception cannot be ruled out at this stage; that, the defence sought to be raised by the applicant involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S.; and that, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter to be examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence led by the parties during trial. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the statements recorded during investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer, it prima facie appears that the complainant was induced to part with a substantial amount of money on the representation made by the applicant regarding sale of plots, which allegedly did not belong to the applicant. 8. At this stage, this Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidentiary value of the material on record or adjudicate disputed questions 2026:UHC:3881 of fact. It is well settled that where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Merely because a transaction has certain civil consequences would not by itself be sufficient to quash criminal proceedings when the allegations disclose ingredients of a criminal offence as well. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. Accordingly, the present C-528 application is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. ( Alok Mahr a, J.) 18.05.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:3881