Gujarat High Court
Banti Nareshkumar Sadadiwala vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 6628 of 2022
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6628 of 2022
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO.
2 of 2023
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6628 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BANTI NARESHKUMAR SADADIWALA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA(3982) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 23/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule fixed forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective
parties waive service of rule.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants seek quashing
and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 1121000320279
of 2022 registered with Adajan Police Station, Surat and further
Page 1 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
proceedings thereto; for the offences under Sections 420, 120(B),
506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants would submit that:
3.1 The applicants are indulged into the business of
construction in the name of style of “Bhakti Developers” and the
applicants are the partners of the said Firm.
3.2 The applicants for carrying out their business of
construction, are borrowing funds from some persons on interest
basis, and on completion of work, the said amount is returned
back to them.
3.3 That because of the new project, the applicants had
borrowed some amount from the security of it was a respondent
no.2 herein on interest and at the time of borrowing the said
amount, certain documents came to be entered into between the
parties as a the said amount. The applicants submit that
prevalent practice was not only carried out with the complainant
but with all the investors who invest their money with the
applicants firm that upon payment of the entire amount with
interest, the document which would have been executed as a
security would be cancelled. The applicants submit that towards
the security the said amount, the applicants have also entered
into agreement to sell in favour of the respondent no.2 herein
and others.
Page 2 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
3.4 The amount was borrowed as a loan and a substantial
portion of the same has been repaid by the applicants firm to the
complainant, an amount to the tune of Rs 99 lakhs has been
paid back to the Respondent No. 2. The Agreement to Sale
(Satakhats) were executed for a total consideration amounting to
Rs 1,15,08,200/-. And out of which the amount of Rs
99,33,415/- was already paid back to the respondent no. 2. That
the amounts were returned in the very same bank account from
which they were received. The details of the amounts which are
returned back in the account of the first informant are as
follows:
Return of consideration amount to the complainant, i.e.,
Respondent No.: 2 for Shop No. : 4, 5 and 6Acceptor of
repayment of Bank UTR Amount
Date
consideration Transfer No. (Rs.)
amountNirav Ratanlal SBINR520191023
23-10-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00129927
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191023
23-10-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00131130
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191023
23-10-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00177672
Page 3 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
Acceptor of
repayment of Bank UTR Amount
Date
consideration Transfer No. (Rs.)
amount
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191023
23-10-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00180062
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191204
04-12-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00143960
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191204
04-12-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00144206
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191207
07-12-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00013058
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191207
07-12-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00013416
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191207
07-12-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00013656
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191207
07-12-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00013972
SBINR520191211
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 11-12-2019 5,00,000/-
00080644
SBINR520191211
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 11-12-2019 5,00,000/-
00081040
SBINR520191213
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 13-12-2019 5,00,000/-
00017235
SBINR520191213
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 13-12-2019 5,00,000/-
00017604
SBINR520191213
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 13-12-2019 5,00,000/-
00018189
Page 4 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
Acceptor of
repayment of Bank UTR Amount
Date
consideration Transfer No. (Rs.)
amount
SBINR520191213
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 13-12-2019 5,00,000/-
00018429
SBINR520191213
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 13-12-2019 5,00,000/-
00018710
SBINR520191213
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 13-12-2019 5,00,000/-
00019018
SBIN2193572187
N.D.Enterprize H.U.F 23-12-2019 1,55,115/-
29
Nirav Ratanlal SBINR520191223
23-12-2019 5,00,000/-
Dembla 00044015
Nirav Ratanlal SBIN2193572210
23-12-2019 1,28,300/-
Dembla 88
Nirav Ratanlal SBIN2193572214
23-12-2019 1,50,000/-
Dembla 04
TOTAL OF
RETURN OF 99,33,415/
CONSIDERATION -
AMOUNT
3.5 The rest of the amount was decided to be paid back at the
time when the agreement to sell would be cancelled. The
complainant has pocketed those 99 lakhs and now is making
false allegations against the applicants.
3.6 That the applicants have borrowed certain amount from
Page 5 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
the respondent no.2 and others on interest and as per the oral
agreed terms and conditions, the applicants have also paid
interest on the amount borrowed by them, for which, necessary
receipts have also been issued bearing signature of the
respondent no.2 and/or his persons and thus on regular basis,
the amount towards the interest has been paid to the respondent
no.2.
3.7 That the applicants firm has till the year 2019 regularly
paid huge interests to the first informant as well as all the other
persons from whom they had borrowed the amount.
3.8 That in the year 2020, entire world faced pandemic of
Covid-19 and because of which, most of the business were
affected and there was huge loss in the business and likewise,
the applicants have also suffered huge loss in the business as
there was no progress in the construction and, hence, it was
very difficult for the applicants to make the payment of the
interest charged on the amount borrowed by the applicants and,
hence, some disputes arose between the parties, however at the
relevant time, the applicants had requested the respondent no.2
for giving some time for the payment because of the situation
prevailing at the relevant point of time, however inspite of
showing some practical approach, the respondent no.2 and
others have started demanding amount from the applicants.
3.9 That only with a pressurize the applicants herein, the
Page 6 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
respondent no.2 herein has filed complaint under Section 31 of
the Act before the Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority
against the applicants herein and others inter alia praying for
direction upon the applicants for execution of the sale deed in
their favour and also prayed for injunction.
3.10 In addition to the complainant the applicants have
executed Agreement to Sale (Satakhats) with other
persons/lenders as well. The same was done as security for the
amounts which they had financed to the applicant’s firm in
times of necessity. Some of the Satakhats have been cancelled as
well upon repayment made by the applicant’s firm.
3.11 That prior to the registration of the First Information
Report the respondent no. 2 herein had filed an application
before the Adajan Police Station praying for registration of an FIR
pertaining to the very same transaction. The applicants were
called for pursuant to the same, but neither were they permitted
application submitted against them, nor did the investigating
agency receive any documents in support of the case of the
applicants. The investigation was to read the undertaken in a
most perfunctory manner and in a one application sided
manner. The said was submitted on 05.01.2022. Therefore, the
applicant no.1 herein submitted an application before the Police
Commissioner, Surat inter alia in detail narrating the grievances.
Therefore, the Police Commissioner Surat directed that the
investigation be undertaken by ACP G Division, Surat. The same
was done in No. LA application 18 of 2022 and 19 of 2022. After
Page 7 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
carrying out a full preliminary fledged pursuant to the
investigation abovementioned application the ACP G Division,
around in the Month of February 2022 submitted a report
indicating that the transaction between the applicants and the
respondent no. 2 herein was pertaining to the monies which
were given for receiving interest. And the dispute between the
parties was civil in nature which did not display any criminality.
3.12 That upon coming to know about the mala fide intention of
the respondent no.2 and others to grab the valuable properties of
the applicants, the applicant no.1 addressed written complaint
Commissioner of Police, Surat against the respondent no.2 and
others inter alia praying for taking appropriate legal measures
against them for preventing their illegal activity of blackmailing
the persons after giving amount. In the said written complaint,
which is numbered as Application No. 1804 of 2022, the
applicant no.1 has stated about the money transactions entered
into between the parties as also the return of the amount
towards the interest, for which, receipts are produced. Pertaining
the same the applicants were called for to record their
statements which have been recorded by the investigating
agency.
3.13 To the utter shock and surprise of the respondent no.2
herein lodged an impugned FIR being C.R.
No.1121000320279/2022 with Adajan Police Station, Surat for
the offences under Sections 420, 120 (B), 506 (2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that in the scheme known
Page 8 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
as “Valentina Business Hub” situated on the land bearing Survey
No.11/1 having Final Plot No.15 & T.P. Scheme No.31 situated
at moje Adajan, Surat, the respondent no.2 and one Sushilbhai
Laxmandas Tahelarmani have purchased few shops, for which,
they have paid an amount of Rs.1,73,08,200/- and behind their
back, the accused have sold those shops to others by executing
registered sale deed and upon making inquiry, they were
threatened with dire consequences and thereby the accused
have committed alleged offences.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned First
Information Report being C.R. No. 1121000320279/2022
registered with Adajan Police Station, Surat, the applicants are
before this Court for quashing and setting aside the same on the
following main grounds:-
(a) That, the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of the
process of the Court and, therefore, same may be quashed and
set aside.
(b) That, prima facie the impugned FIR is nothing but an
abuse of the process of the Court and is filed by the respondent
no.2-complainant with a view to harass the applicant, therefore,
same may be quashed and set aside.
(c) That, the impugned FIR lodged by the complainant are
absolutely false, fabricated, concocted and far from the truth andPage 9 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
is filed to implicate the present applicants in the alleged offences.
(d) That even if the allegations mentioned in the FIR are
accepted to be true in their entirety without admitting the same
to be true, then also prima facie no offence, much less an offence
punishable under the provision of the Indian Penal Code.
(e) That the uncontroverted allegation made in the FIR does
not disclose the commission of any offense and does not make
out any case against the applicants. Therefore also, the FIR is
required to be quashed and set aside.
(f) That the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceedings against the applicant. Therefore, also the FIR is
required to be quashed and set aside.
(g) That, the FIR filed is manifestly attended with malafide and
is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive. Therefore, also the
FIR is required to be quashed and set aside.
(h) In fact, there is inordinate and unexplained delay caused
in filing the impugned FIR because the allegation incident has
taken place on or before 13.07.2018, for which, the impugned
FIR is lodged on 23.03.2022 i.e. after a period of more than three
and half years, which suggests false implication of the applicants
herein. Therefore also, the impugned FIR may be quashed andPage 10 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
set aside.
(i) The entire complaint does not mention a whisper regarding
the receipt of an amount to the tune of 90 lakhs by the
complainant. On the contrary he is the one who has duped the
applicants. The applicants submit that after pocketing an
amount of Rs 99 lakhs he has not cancelled the Satakhat and
has on the contrary initiated the present prosecution with a
mala fide intent to pocket more money.
(j) The impugned FIR is nothing but a counter blast to the
written complaint given by the applicant no.1 herein before the
Commissioner of Police, Surat. It is submitted that in fact, in the
written complaint submitted by the applicant no.1, entire facts of
the case have been narrated including the modus operandi of the
respondent no.2 as to how he is duping persons after giving
amount on interest. Thus only with a view to save their skin or
as a pressurize tactics, the impugned FIR has been lodged,
which is required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble
Court.
(k) That the applicants have not committed any offence of
cheating as alleged. The applicants are in the business of
construction, for which, as they were in need of money to carry
on project, they have taken certain amount from the respondent
no.2 herein, for which, it is agreed between the parties that
necessary interest would be charged and as per the said mutual
understanding, interest has already been paid to the respondentPage 11 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
no.2 and because of the situation prevailed at the relevant point
of time due to Covid-19, the business of the applicants was
stalled, as a result of which, it was difficult for the applicants to
make the payment of interest and, hence, threats were given to
the applicants and despite that, after arranging from close
persons, the applicants have made the payment. It is, however,
submitted that at the time of borrowing amount by the
applicants, some documents came to be executed in favour of
the respondent no.2 for certain properties and thus, after taking
advantage of the situation, that too, after pocketing huge
amount from the applicants towards the interest, now impugned
FIR came to be lodged with mala fide intention to settle personal
score.
(l) That pursuant to the application submitted by the
applicant no. 1 alleging that the investigation carried out by the
Adajan Police being carried out in a most perfunctory manner,
the Commissioner of Police directed that the ACP G Division, to
undertake the preliminary investigation pertaining to LA
application no. 18 and 19 of 2022. After undertaking a detailed
preliminary investigation which included the recording of the
statements of the applicants side and considering the documents
submitted by the applicants side the ACP G Division submitted a
report indicating that the transactions between the parties were
for the purpose of loan which was given to the applicants side
and regularly the interest was paid up. Meaning thereby there
was no sale of property as alleged by the other side. further more
the report also indicated that the dispute was civil in nature andPage 12 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
there was no criminality involved into the transaction. Inspite of
the said report the investigating agency registered an FIR which
is a gross abuse of process of law, and if the same is permitted to
go on with the investigation the abuse would further continue.
Hence, the impugned FIR and further proceedings thereto are
required to be quashed and set aside.
(m) It is submitted that right from the beginning, an intention
of the respondent no.2 herein was to cheat the applicants herein
because on one hand, after giving amount to the petitioner, they
have received amount towards the interest in crores of rupees
and on the other hand, by adopting such pressurize tactics, they
want to grab the valuable properties of the applicants. It is
submitted that in fact, the respondent no.2 herein is not having
valid licence to lend the amount on interest and from the above
facts, it is clear that huge amount has been given by him to the
applicants on interest and, hence, it is well within his knowledge
that he will be in trouble if such fact would have come to the
notice, for which, there is possibility of registration of offence
against him and, hence by adopting such pressurize tactics, the
respondent no.2 herein is trying to protect his skin. Therefore
also, the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.
(n) It is further submitted that while dealing with such type of
the alleged offences, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1992
SC 604, has laid down guidelines, which reads as under:-
“(1) Where the allegations made in the First
Page 13 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, F.I.R. do a the allegations in the not constitute
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. Or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against thePage 14 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there
is a specific in the Code or provision concerned Act,
efficacious redress the providing for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.
(8) It is submitted that this is a case of clear false
implication of the applicants in false and frivolous FIR
and, hence, for no fault on their part, the applicants have
to face trial for doing nothing. It is therefore submitted that
the impugned FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of the
process of the court, which cannot be proceeded further.”
5. Therefore, he has argued to allow the present application
and quash the impugned FIR.
6. Learned Senior counsel S.I. Nanavaty with learned
Page 15 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
advocate P.P. Mamudar and Learned APP would submit that the
present application is not entertainable under Section 482 of the
Code, as the averments made in the present application are
serious disputed questions of facts, calling for detailed
investigation of the financial transactions which has occurred
between the parties during the period from 2017 to 2022 in
respect of the property in dispute, being the Shop no. UG-4,
UG-5 and UG-6 in the Commercial building Scheme named
Valentina Business Hub, constructed by the applicants herein,
on land bearing Revenue Survey no. 11/1 in Adajan Village, now
bearing Final Plot no. 15 in T. P. Scheme no. 31. That the
applicants herein have defrauded the answering-deponent, by
pocketing the entire sale consideration for the aforementioned
three shops by inducing the answering-deponent to invest in the
said premises, and thereafter not executing the Registered Sale-
deeds, even after lapse of substantial period of the completion of
the construction of the said premises, under one or the other
pretext.
7. It is further submitted that it was only on 13.10.2021,
when the answering-deponent was about to make a complaint
with the RERA Authority for non-execution of the Sale-deed by
the applicants herein, upon verification of the Property with the
office of Sub-registrar, the answering-deponent learned that the
said three shops, for which the three separate registered
agreement to sale without possession were executed in favour of
the answering-deponent on 29.11.2017 and 22.06.2018 by the
applicants herein, have been sold to one Ravikumar Arvindbhai
Page 16 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
Fatel on 13.07.2018, one Mitaben Yogesh Daiya and one
Boneyben Bhavinbhai Daiya on 20.09.2018 within six months,
by executing three different Registered Sale deeds, by mentioning
the incorrect description of the said three shops therein, so that
the same could not be identified during it’s registration before
the Sub-registrar. The copies of the Indexes of the same
properties, showing different descriptions of the Properties,
which establishes the malpractice carried out by the applicants
herein, to constitute an offence of cheating punishable under
Section 420 of IPC, are collectively annexed hereto.
8. It is further submitted that the said three agreements to
sell were executed in the years 2017 and 2018, and the
applicants herein had defrauded the answering-deponent by
executing the registered Sale-deeds for the same in favour of the
aforementioned third parties in the Month of July-2018 and
September-2018 i.e. within six months, behind his back. The
applicants herein had never let the answering-deponent know
about the factum of the said properties having been sold off by
them to some third parties, and whenever the answering-
deponent had approached the applicants herein for execution of
the Sale-deed for the said three shops, he was given false
assurances that the same shall be executed at the earliest, upon
resolution of their inter-say dispute between the
Partners/Directors. It is further submitted that the applicants
herein had even misrepresented before the answering-deponent
by showing Public Notice in the Daily Newspapers dated
07.06.2019, for delaying the execution of the Sale-deed, due to
Page 17 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
which the answering-deponent was kept waiting in dark.
9. It is further submitted that before October-2021, the
answering deponent had even issued various legal notices upon
the applicants which were never responded nor any objections
raising the issue of the contents therein being incorrect were
ever raised by any of the applicants herein, which clearly shows
the criminal intent and modus of the applicants herein to
defraud the genuine buyers of the property. The copies of the
Legal notices and the proof of service upon the applicants herein
are collectively annexed hereto.
10. It is further submitted that the answering-deponent herein
is not the only one who has been cheated by the applicants
herein, and there are other Victims also, and one such Victim is
Mr. Sushilbhai Laxmandas Tahalramani, who had paid the
entire sale consideration of Rs. 1 crore for two Shops bearing no.
101 and 102 on the second floor of the same premises, out of
which the Shop no. 101 has been maliciously sold off to one
Rupeshkumar Kirtikumar Jain. The copies of the payment
receipts mentioning property description affixed with revenue
stamps for the full amount received by the applicants and the
sale deed executed in respect of the said one out of the Two
Shops, demonstrating the fraudulent conduct of the applicants.
Thus, when prima facie the offences punishable under Section
420 read with Section 114 of IPC are made out against the
applicants herein, this Hon’ble High Court may not be pleased to
exercise it’s Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Page 18 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
11. Learned Senior counsel would further submit that in the
facts of the present case, the applicants have malafidely
attempted to misguide the Hon’ble Court by suppressing the
material facts relevant for adjudication of the present
application, by not supplying the copies of the relevant
documents, being the registered Sale-deeds executed in favour of
third parties, in respect of the disputed properties mentioned in
the First Information Report, but deliberately the copies of the
Agreements executed between various other parties in respect of
some other properties, situated in the Commercial premises
named V-Square in Revenue Survey no. 156/1 and 156/2 of
Adajan Village, now having Final Plot no. 62 in T.P. Scheme no.
29 (Rander) and V-3 Corner in Revenue Survey no. 121 of
Adajan Village, now having Final Plot no. 108 in T.P. Scheme no.
32 (Adajan), have been placed on record, to deviate the entire
issue. Thus, the applicants have the audacity to misguide the
Hon’ble High Court by placing the documents which have no
relevance in the facts of the present case, and accordingly the
applicants need to be reprimanded for their misconduct in the
present proceedings, by imposing heavy cost.
12. It is further submitted that the applicants herein have
attempted to further misguide the Hon’ble Court by referring to
the bank statement of the applicant’s firm claiming repayments
having been made to the answering-deponent for cancellation of
the registered agreement to sell in respect of the disputed
properties, which is incorrect and misleading. In this regard it is
humbly submitted that the claim of the applicants that they had
Page 19 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
made repayment of Rs. 99,33,415/- as against Rs.
1,15,08,200/- is fallacious and a camouflage, and in fact the
payment made by the answering-deponent towards payment for
purchase of these three shops has been attempted to be
maliciously shown as loan, which is absolutely false and
frivolous. It is most humbly submitted in respect of the alleged
payment received by the answering-deponent in his bank
account to the tune of Rs. 99,33,415/-during the period from
23/10/2019 to 23/12/2019 are partially in respect of the
interest free unsecured loan advanced by the answering-
deponent to the firm of the applicants to the tune
Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs. 25,00,000/- advanced on 20/12/2018
and 12/09/2018 from his bank Account, at the behest of the
Original Accused no. 2-Pradipkumar Mafatlal Patel, whom the
answering-deponent trusted a lot on account of being a friend of
his deceased father and their neighbour, who had even
persuaded the complainant to invest in the said scheme. It is
further submitted that the remaining payment of Rs. 59 lakhs,
as claimed by the applicant herein, is in respect of the
unsecured loan advanced by the Applicant’s firm to the
complainant upon his request on account of having developed
good relations, which is evident from the Income-Tax return of
the answering-deponent for the relevant period. The complainant
have to repay Rs. 59 Lakhs to the applicant’s Firm in the
Financial Year 2019-2020, but the same could not have been
adjusted against the Property which has been purchased by the
answering-deponent in the year 2017 & 2018 by any means,
more so when the properties in question were fraudulently sold
off by the applicants in the year 2018. The copies of the Income-
Page 20 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
tax returns with balance sheet of the answering-deponent, and
bank details, reflecting the transactions with the firm of the
applicants are referred to buttress the argument.
13. It is further submitted that the applicants herein have
mala fidely produced receipts of some documents at page no 114
to 119 which are not concerning the transactions which have
occurred between the applicants and the complainant. Upon
verification with another victim-Shri Sushil Tahalramani, it is
learned that even the documents at page 114 to 119 of the
Petition, being the so-called payment receipts for cancellation of
his agreement to sell, are forged and fabricated, as the said
Victim has informed the answering-deponent that he has not
received any such amount nor signed any such receipt, and even
otherwise without admitting and without prejudice, it is humbly
submitted that the said receipts are inadmissible in law, and the
same cannot be relied upon to prove the innocence of the
applicants herein, and accordingly when the allegations herein
needs to be seriously investigated, and any indulgence of this
Hon’ble High Court in favour of the applicants herein, will
prejudice the investigation at this crucial stage, and hence
prayed to reject the application.
14. It is further submitted in this regard that the factual
averments of the applicants herein of having borrowed some
amount from the answering-deponent, and the registered
agreement to sell in respect of the said three shops were only for
security purpose are concocted, false, misleading and incorrect,
Page 21 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
and accordingly denied in toto. It is further submitted that the
complainant has paid Rs. 1,15,08,200/- in total to the
applicant’s firm for the aforementioned three shops in the
commercial scheme named Valentina Business Hub in the years
between 2017 and 2018, which is the subject matter of the
present First Information Report, which have been sold off to
third parties within three to six months by mentioning the
incorrect description of the said three shops to the sub registrar
office, behind his back, by prejudicing his rights over the said
property, which would clearly constitute an offence punishable
under Section 420 of IPC.
15. It is further submitted that the applicants herein have
attempted to plead a so-called practice of borrowing loan, which
has no legal basis, which at the most can be treated as their
defense during the trial. It is further submitted that applicants
herein have partially narrated the true facts and materially
suppressed substantial fact that Rs. 39,47,000/- was paid by
the complainant as part consideration for another two properties
being Shops no. G-17 and 18 on Ground Floor of the
Commercial Scheme named V-Square at Village Rander, while
executing the registered agreement to sell dated 30.08.2018, but
as the construction of the said building was not completed as
assured by the applicants herein, the deed for cancellation of the
said agreement to sell was executed on 09.05.2019, for which
the sale consideration was reversed in March-2019.
16. It is further submitted that the construction of the same is
Page 22 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
yet not completed. Similarly, it is further submitted that the
answering-deponent had even paid Rs. 2,33,89,000/- for three
Shops being G-3, G-4 and 171 in a third Commercial Property
Scheme recognized as Walkway The Mall, situated at Adajan
Surat, during the period from 01.04.2019 to 24.12.2019, for
which the Sale deeds have already been executed. It is further
submitted that the applicants have frivolously attempted to
concoct the facts by misleading the Hon’ble Court by partially
referring to the Bank details for the limited period between
23.10.2019 to 23.12.2019 instead of placing on record the entire
balance sheet or bank details of the applicant’s firm for the
period from 2017 to 2021. Learned Senior counsel drew
attention towards the details of transactions between the
applicants and the answering-deponent in respect of the
properties and the loans to argue that what has been stated by
the applicants is not correct.
17. It is further submitted that the complainant was made to
run from post to pillars and even threatened with dire
consequences by the applicants herein for seeking the execution
of the registered Sale-deed in respect of the three Shops in
question, which have been already sold to some third party by
the applicants within three to six months by mentioning the
incorrect description of the said three shops to the sub registrar
office after pocketing the entire sale consideration from the
complainant. It is further submitted that till October-2021, the
answering-deponent was not aware of the misdeed of the
applicants herein, and it was only when he had verified the
Page 23 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
records from the sub-registrar’s office, the fraud played by the
applicants herein has come to light.
18. It is further submitted that the complainant has been
ventilating his grievance before the Police authorities and even
RERA authorities by preferring appropriate proceedings, and had
even issued legal notices upon the applicants for redressal of his
grievance, but it was only after substantial preliminary Inquiry
conducted by the Police Officers for more than five months, the
present First Information report has been registered, which calls
for no indulgence of this Hon’ble High Court, in its Inherent
jurisdiction.
19. Lastly it is submitted that the applicants have vaguely
averred about their written complaint before the Police authority,
which was a counterblast to the written complaint of the
answering-deponent, for which the Police machinery had
procured the documentary evidences from the complainant as
well as from the applicants herein, at preliminary stage, and
after examining the same for more than four months, the
impugned FIR has been registered against the present
applicants, which do not call for any interference at this stage.
Thus, has argued to reject the present application.
Reasoning & Findings
20. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, perused the impugned First Information Report along
Page 24 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
with papers of investigation, and closely scrutinized the
extensive financial documentation placed on record, this Court is
called upon to determine whether the allegations disclose a
prima facie case of criminal cheating and conspiracy, or whether
the criminal machinery has been weaponized to settle a purely
commercial and financial dispute.
21. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
of the Code are designed to prevent the abuse of the process of
any Court and to secure the ends of justice. While this Court is
mindful that it should not conduct a meticulous mini-trial at
this stage, it is equally duty-bound to look beneath the surface of
a criminal complaint to ensure that a dispute, which is
essentially civil or commercial in nature, has not been given an
artificial criminal cloak to exert undue leverage over the
accused.
22. In exercise of its jurisdiction, the High Court is not to
examine the matter superficially. 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. (Ref: G. Sagar Suri v. State of
U.P., 2000 (2) SCC 636).
A. The Conceptual Distinction Between Breach of Contract
and Cheating
Page 25 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
23. The core offense alleged against the applicants is Cheating
under Section 420 of the IPC. The legal boundary separating a
civil breach of contract from the offense of cheating is well-
settled by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments, notably
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168
wherein it is held that:
“On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the
definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts
which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the
first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to
deliver any property to any person. The second class of
acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do
anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to
do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the
inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second
class of acts, the inducement must be intentional but not
fraudulent or dishonest.
In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that
the distinction between mere breach of contract and the
offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the
intention of the accused at the time to inducement which
may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this
subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of
contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating
unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at
the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the
offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the
intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person
guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the
promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise
subsequently such a culpable intention right at the
beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be
presumed.”
Page 26 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
24. For an offense of cheating to be sustained, a dishonest or
fraudulent intent must exist at the very inception of the
transaction. A subsequent failure to fulfill a promise or execute a
formal contract does not constitute cheating unless it is shown
that the accused held a deceptive intention right from the
beginning.
25. In the present case, the undisputed chronological facts
strongly refute the existence of any deceptive intent at the
inception. The commercial relationship between the applicants
and Respondent No. 2 was not an isolated, single-transaction
event. It was a prolonged, continuous business engagement
spanning multiple projects (“Valentina Business Hub”, “V-
Square”, and “Walkway The Mall”) and involving massive
financial outlays. The transaction history establishes that the
parties maintained a seamless, mutually beneficial relationship
until the year 2020. The disruption arose exclusively due to the
global COVID-19 pandemic, which paralyzed the real estate
sector, stalled construction progress, and created severe liquidity
crises. A commercial failure induced by systemic macroeconomic
factors cannot be retroactively branded as a pre-meditated
criminal conspiracy to cheat. More particularly when
transactions of similar nature of executing registered Agreement
to Sale and then cancelling it subsequently were entered in year
2019 also.
B. Analysis of the Banking Transactions and the “Collateral
Security” Model
Page 27 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
26. The applicants contend that they are real estate developers
whose business model relies on borrowing short-term capital
from private investors on an interest basis, using registered
Agreements to Sell (Satakhats) merely as collateral security.
Respondent No. 2 strongly contests this, asserting that the
Satakhats executed on 29.11.2017 and 22.06.2018 were
absolute, standalone transactions for the purchase of Shop Nos.
UG-4, UG-5, and UG-6, and that the subsequent direct bank
transfers totalling ₹99,33,415/- from the applicants to his
account were entirely unrelated unsecured loans.
27. To evaluate these conflicting assertions within the
framework of Section 482, this Court must examine the
undisputed bank transactions. The applicants have produced
verifiable bank ledger details showing a rapid succession of large
financial reversals to the informant and his HUF entity (N.D.
Enterprise HUF) between October 23, 2019, and December 23,
2019, summarized as follows:
[October 2019]
Four separate UTR transfers of ₹5,00,000/- each on 23-10-2019
──► Total: ₹20,00,000/-
[December 2019]
Ten transfers of ₹5,00,000/- each + structured minor balances
──► Total: ₹79,33,415/-
────────────────────────────────────────────
COMBINED REVERSAL TO COMPLAINANT / HUF:
₹99,33,415/-
Page 28 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
28. This Court finds the informant’s explanation–that these
massive, structured, and rapid financial inflows were
independent, coincidental unsecured loans advanced by a
builder to a customer–to be highly improbable and legally
untenable. In an ordinary, genuine real estate transaction, a
builder does not routinely funnel large sum of rupees back into
the bank account of a purchasing client within a two-month
window while the customer supposedly awaits the execution of a
final sale deed. The flow of funds strongly corroborates the
applicants’ contention: the transaction was fundamentally a
financing arrangement where the registered Agreement to Sale
(Satakhats) served as protective collateral. Once the applicants
returned nearly 86% of the principal consideration
(₹99,33,415/- out of ₹1,15,08,200/-) directly into the
informant’s accounts, the criminal element of “dishonest
misappropriation” or “enrichment at the cost of the informant”
was completely extinguished.
29. This Court has closely examined the pivotal argument
raised by the learned counsel for the complainant/informant
that the dynamic financial reversals totaling ₹99,33,415/-
cannot be adjusted against the disputed transaction for Shop
Nos. UG-4, UG-5, and UG-6. The informant’s advocate
strenuously contended that these payments were camouflaged
and actually represented repayments of separate, independent
transactions–namely, interest-free unsecured loans of
₹15,00,000/- and ₹25,00,000/- advanced by the informant to
the firm in 2018, as well as an unrelated ₹59,00,000/-
Page 29 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
transaction. However, this Court finds the informant’s
explanation–that these massive, highly structured, and rapid
financial inflows were independent, coincidental transactions
completely divorced from the disputed shops–to be highly
improbable, legally untenable, and a convenient afterthought.
30. In an ordinary, genuine real estate transaction, a builder
does not routinely funnel large sums of money back into the
bank account of a purchasing client within a narrow two-month
window (from October 23, 2019, to December 23, 2019) while the
customer supposedly awaits the execution of a final sale deed.
The timing, the rapid sequence of the transfers, and the specific
quantum of the funds returned directly to the informant and his
HUF entity (N.D. Enterprise HUF) tell a completely different
story. Had this been a straightforward case of real estate
cheating where the developers intended to pocket the informant’s
money and fraudulently sell the shops to third parties, the
applicants would not have routed a staggering ₹99,33,415/-
(representing nearly 86% of the total property consideration of
₹1,15,08,200/-) back into the very same bank accounts of the
informant from which the initial funds were received.
31. Furthermore, it is highly conspicuous that the explanation
now propounded by the complainant–to the effect that the
receipt of ₹99,33,415/- was merely a partial adjustment against
other independent financial transactions–has surfaced for the
very first time in the affidavit-in-reply filed before this Court.
Conspicuously, throughout the course of the preliminary inquiry
Page 30 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
and the initial police investigation, the complainant maintained a
studied silence and suppressed the material fact of having
received this substantial sum from the applicants. This conduct,
marked by selective disclosure and a belated, convenient
explanation, speaks volumes about the lack of bona fides on the
part of the informant. It strongly indicates a deliberate attempt
to withhold crucial financial realities from the investigating
agency in order to artificially engineer a prima facie criminal case
of cheating, which this Court cannot countenance.
32. The informant’s attempt to artificially segregate these
repayments into unrelated, unstructured “unsecured loans” is a
transparent effort to preserve a color of criminality over a purely
civil dispute. By asserting that these repayments belonged to
other oral, unmapped financial arrangements, the informant
seeks to have this Court ignore the undeniable reality of a
massive capital return. Even if the parties had multiple financial
dealings, the flowing back of ₹99,33,415/- directly to the
informant during the subsistence of the dispute completely
refutes the existence of any mens rea or dishonest intent to
induce, cheat, or cause wrongful loss to the informant. The
movement of these funds strongly corroborates the applicants’
contention: the transaction was fundamentally a financing
arrangement where the registered Agreements to Sell (Satakhats)
served as protective collateral security.
33. Once the applicants returned the vast majority of the
principal consideration directly into the informant’s accounts,
Page 31 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
the criminal element of “dishonest misappropriation,” “deceptive
inducement,” or “unjust enrichment at the cost of the informant”
was completely extinguished. Any remaining dispute regarding
the accounting balance, interest rates, or the adjustment of
these funds across different ledgers is a matter to be strictly
resolved by a civil court, and cannot be permitted to form the
basis of a criminal prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC.
C. Dealing with Contentions of Double-Sale and
Misdescription of properties.
34. The learned counsel for the informant heavily emphasized
that the applicants committed an overt act of fraud by executing
registered Sale Deeds in favor of third parties (Ravikumar
Arvindbhai Patel and others) in July and September 2018, within
a few months of executing the initial agreements. It was further
contended that the applicants deliberately altered the physical
descriptions of the shops in the subsequent deeds to circumvent
the Sub-Registrar’s automated logging system, demonstrating an
active criminal modus operandi.
35. While these allegations appear serious on the face of the
FIR, they must be weighed against the structural reality of the
transaction. If the initial agreement to Sale (Satakhats) were
executed as security for an interest-bearing financial loan rather
than an absolute transfer of property rights, the developers
retained the underlying commercial equity in the premises. Even
such transactions are evident subsequent to the Agreement to
Page 32 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
Sale executed in the present transaction impugned under the
FIR. Therefore, subsequent sale of those shops to actual buyers
to generate liquidity to repay the original financier (Respondent
No. 2) aligns perfectly with standard commercial real estate
practices which cannot attract alleged offences. The fact that the
applicants did, in fact, use their corporate liquidity to return
over ₹99 Lakhs to the informant shortly after these sales
completely demolishes the argument that the third-party sales
were executed to leave the informant high and dry.
36. If the informant believes that his civil rights under the
initial registered Agreements to Sell were compromised by the
subsequent third-party sales, or that the properties were
misdescribed to his prejudice, his remedy lies strictly within the
domain of civil law. He is fully entitled to seek a decree for
specific performance, sue for the balance of the outstanding
dues, or pursue statutory damages before the competent civil
courts. However, a breach of a commercial agreement or a
dispute over accounting adjustments cannot be permitted to be
tried as a criminal offense under Section 420 of the IPC.
D. Weight of the Preliminary Investigation and Existing Civil
Remedies.
37. It is further pertinent to highlight the procedural history
preceding the registration of this FIR. Following complaints and
counter-complaints regarding financial harassment, the
Commissioner of Police, Surat, directed a high-ranking officer–
Page 33 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), ‘G’ Division–to
conduct a thorough preliminary inquiry (LA Application Nos. 18
and 19 of 2022). After examining the financial ledgers, bank
statements, and recording statements from both sides, the ACP
submitted an official report in February 2022. The report
categorically concluded that the transactions were financial
loans given for earning interest, the properties were held as
security, and the dispute was entirely civil in nature, displaying
zero criminality.
38. While a preliminary police report does not bind this Court,
its findings carry substantial corroborative weight when
assessing whether a prosecution is maliciously instituted. The
registration of the impugned FIR immediately after this report
indicates that the informant, dissatisfied with the police’s refusal
to act as a debt-recovery agent, slightly twisted the narrative to
force a criminal registration.
39. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
(2007) 12 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held:
“The veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the
respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of
evidence and documents by a civil court of competent
jurisdiction.”
Page 34 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
40. The facts of the present case would reveal that there is
word against word by the applicants and the complainant
however, the aspect of claims can be gone in to by the civil court
but from prima facie reading of the FIR and the papers of
investigation as well as documents relied upon by the parties it
cannot be said that offence under Section 406 or Section 420
IPC is made out.
41. Beyond the charge of cheating, the learned counsel for the
informant has strenuously argued that the applicants’ actions
independently attract the offense of Criminal Breach of Trust
under Section 406 of the IPC. The gravamen of the informant’s
contention is that the sum of ₹1,15,08,200/- paid for the
specific purchase of Shop Nos. UG-4, UG-5, and UG-6
constituted an “entrustment” of property, and that by executing
subsequent registered Sale Deeds in favor of third parties in
mid-2018 behind the informant’s back, the applicants
dishonestly misappropriated those funds and converted the
underlying property to their own commercial use. Conversely,
the learned counsel for the applicants argued that a purely
commercial builder-buyer transaction or a loan secured by an
Agreement to Sell does not create a fiduciary relationship or a
legal “entrustment” within the strict meaning of Section 405 of
the IPC, and that the return of over ₹99 Lakhs completely
negates any dishonest intent to misappropriate.
42. In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust under
Section 406 of IPC:
Page 35 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
1. There must be entrustment with person for property or
dominion over the property, and
2. The person entrusted: – a) dishonestly misappropriated or
converted property to his own use, or b) dishonestly used or
disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person
so to do in violation of: (i) any direction of law prescribing the
method in which the trust is discharged; or (ii) legal contract
touching the discharge of trust.
43. In this regard it would be apt to refer to the judgment in
the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 281 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248 at page 710 where it is thus held:
“39. Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal
offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence
of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act
of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which
the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts
but, any breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a
criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in Hari
Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha [Hari Prasad
Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha, (1973) 2 SCC 823 :
1973 SCC (Cri) 1082] as under : (SCC p. 824, para 4)“4. We have heard Mr Maheshwari on behalf of the
appellant and are of the opinion that no case has been
made out against the respondents under Section 420 of
the Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the present
appeal, we would assume that the various allegations ofPage 36 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
fact which have been made in the complaint by the
appellant are correct. Even after making that allowance,
we find that the complaint does not disclose the
commission of any offence on the part of the respondents
under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. There is
nothing in the complaint to show that the respondent had
dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the
appellant parted with Rs 35,000. There is also nothing to
indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to
pay them Rs 35,000 by deceiving him. It is further not
the case of the appellant that a representation was made
by the respondents to him at or before the time he paid
the money to them and that at the time the
representation was made, the respondents knew the
same to be false. The fact that the respondents
subsequently did not abide by their commitment that
they would show the appellant to be the proprietor of
Drang Transport Corporation and would also render
accounts to him in the month of December might create
civil liability for them, but this fact would not be sufficient
to fasten criminal liability on the respondents for the
offence of cheating.”
44. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest
intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in
the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into
possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but
illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms
of the contract, then the question is, in a case like this, whether
Page 37 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
the retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether the
retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability
would depend upon the facts of each case.
45. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the
offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In
case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of
inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a
subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not
the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction
i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence.
46. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property
must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have
dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of
breach of trust has been committed must be either the property
of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest
in or ownership of it must be of some other person. The accused
must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although
the offence i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve
dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different
in basic concept.
47. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and
Page 38 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the
time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since
inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment
is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the
offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he
dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of
cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a
person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a
situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
48. This Court finds that to sustain a charge under Section
406, the twin ingredients of “entrustment” and “dishonest
misappropriation” must be explicitly satisfied. A commercial
advance paid by a buyer to a builder under a contract for sale
does not amount to an “entrustment” of property. The money
paid becomes the property of the developer to be utilized in the
ordinary course of business, creating a reciprocal contractual
obligation to deliver the property or return the money and in the
case on hand to cancel the Agreement to Sale when money is
received back.
49. Factually, the informant’s argument of dishonest
conversion is entirely defeated by the undisputed banking
reality. A party acting with the criminal intent to dishonestly
misappropriate entrusted funds would not systematically return
₹99,33,415/- back into the depositor’s account through regular
banking channels. The rapid remittance of nearly 86% of the
consideration directly back to the informant and his HUF entity
Page 39 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
completely dismantles the allegation of “dishonest intent or
fraudulent misappropriation”. The subsequent sale of the
shops to third parties was a commercial exercise of ownership
equity by the developers to generate liquidity, a substantial
portion of which was immediately routed back to the informant
to reduce their financial liabilities with an understanding that
the Agreement to Sale (Satakhats) will be cancelled in due course
as routinely done in other various transactions.
50. Any remaining friction/dispute regarding the unpaid
balance or the adjustment of funds across different accounts or
unpaid interest represents a classic civil dispute over the
accounting of a debt, entirely devoid of the essential ingredients
of criminal breach of trust. Consequently, this Court holds that
the mechanical invocation of Section 406 of the IPC in what is
fundamentally a commercial breach of contract is legally
unsustainable and constitutes a manifest abuse of the process of
law.
51. In the case of Naresh Aneja Vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2025) 2 SCC 604 and Sharif Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2024) 14 SCC 122, wherein it has been held that
mere threats without intention to cause alarm do not constitute
criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC. That apart,
from the reading of the FIR this court notices the fact no
intention of criminal intimidation is prima facie established since
prosecution of a person for criminal intimidation requires clear
intention to cause alarm, irrespective of whether the victim was
Page 40 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
alarmed or not. In the absence thereof continuation of the
prosecution against the applicants by virtue of a vague reference
to the expression “……” cannot by itself would not disclose any
offence. Thus, no case is made out or offence under Section
506(2) of IPC.
52. In the present case, the parameters laid down by the
landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
reported in (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) are fully satisfied,
particularly Guideline No. 7, which mandates the quashing of
proceedings that are manifestly attended with mala fides or
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance and in the case on hand exerting illegitimate
commercial pressure. In the present case, the record reflects
nothing but a civil/commercial dispute, wherein invocation of
Sections as alleged in the FIR is visibly an opportunistic
embellishment designed to color a purely commercial dispute
with a criminal hue.
53. Conclusively, the dispute between the parties is purely a
civil accounting and contractual disagreement arising from a
financing arrangement that went sour due to pandemic-induced
market conditions. Permitting the criminal process to continue
against the partners of the developer firm, especially after they
have established the repayment of ₹99,33,415/- through
verifiable banking channels, would amount to an unwarranted
abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the intervention of this
Court under Section 482 of the Code is thoroughly justified.
Page 41 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
54. In the wake of reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered view that the continuation of the impugned
criminal proceedings would amount to a gross abuse of the
judicial process. Consequently, the present application is
allowed. The impugned First Information Report (FIR) being C.R.
No. 1121000320279 of 2022 registered with Adajan Police
Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
120(B), 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along
with all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, is hereby quashed and set aside so far as the present
applicants are concerned. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
54.1 It is made clear that the findings recorded herein shall not
come in the way of any of the parties in any civil or criminal
proceedings pending, if any, before the competent Court/forum,
or in any proceedings that may be filed.
54.2 In view of main application being Cr.M.A No. 6628/2022 is
allowed, as aforesaid, Cr.M.A No. 2/2023 (for vacating interim
relief) does not survive. The same stands disposed of,
accordingly.
55. So far as, Cr.M.A (for joining party) No.1/2023 is
concerned, the same is preferred praying to join the applicants
therein as a party respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the main
application being Cr.M.A No. 6628/2022, through their
constituted power of attorney – Sushil Laxmandas Tahelramani.
However, a perusal of the FIR in question herein and the charge-
Page 42 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
undefined
sheet pursuant thereto reveals that the said power of attorney is
shown as a witness in the case on hand. Further, a perusal of
the application for joining party reveals that the case of the
applicants therein is also akin to the case of the de facto
complainant – respondent No. 2 herein (in Cr.M.A 6628/2022),
which is decided on merits by the judgment and order
pronounced today. Hence, this application being Cr.M.A No.
1/2023 is disposed of, accordingly.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
Further order
After the aforesaid judgment and order is pronounced,
learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the Respondent No. 2 –
original complainant requested to stay the implementation of the
same for a period of four weeks as he desires to challenge the
same before the higher forum.
Since, the matter is of 2022 and the applicants were
protected since then (by an order dated 26.04.2022) and as the
present application is allowed after full-fledged hearing on
merits, the request is not acceded to.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 43 of 43
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 23:09:30 IST 2026
