Parveen Nain And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 23 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Nain And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 23 February, 2026
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M)
Judgment reserved on: 11.02.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 23.02.2026
PARVEEN NAIN AND ORS.
... Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL.
****
Present: Mr. R,S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Veer Imaan Singh, Mr. Jashan Preet
Singh and Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocates
for respondent No.2.
****
H.S. GREWAL, J.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of FIR No.0028 dated 13.01.2022 under Sections 120-B, 420,
467, 468 and 471 of IPC registered at Police Station City Sonipat, District Sonipat
(Annexure P-1) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
including the challan (Annexure P-3) under Sections 120-B, 180, 420, 467, 468
and 471 of IPC filed against the petitioners as no offence is made out rather a civil
dispute has been given the colour of criminality.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant Ajay Kumar
alias Ajay son of Shri Dariya Tehsil and District Sonepat was owner and in
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:47 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -2-
possession of land comprised in Rect. and Killa No.2/25 (1-4), 3/21 (3-0), 22 (0-
17), 5/1 (8-0), 2(8-0), 3 (5-11), 4 (1-11), 6 (4-7), 7/1 (2-0), 7/2 (6-0), 8 (7-4), 9 (8-
0), 10 (8-0), 11 (7-17), 12 (7-11), 13(7-12)14/1 (2-0) 14/2 (6-0), 15 (8-0), 16 (8-
0), 18 (8-0), 19/1 Min 4-19, 20/1/1 min (2-7), 5/26 (0-10), 6/5 (7-18), 6 (8-0).
On 29.08.2018, the complainant made deal of 56 Kanals 3 Marlas out
of the aforesaid land with accused Nos.1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.1.25 crore per acre
and in the agreement the date for registration was fixed as 07.03.2019. However,
the accused No.1 and 2 could not arrange the balance sale consideration within
stipulated time, and sought further time. They also made deal for purchasing his
remaining land at the rate of Rs.1.25 crores, for which the complainant gave his
consent, upon which the accused prepared three separate agreements on
07.03.2019. In two agreements the rate was mentioned as Rs.1.25 crore per acre
and date for registration was fixed as 06.02.2020. However, in one agreement
No.13668 instead of Rs.01 crore 25 lacs, the rate was mentioned as only Rs.25
lacs per acre and date for registration of sale deed was fixed as 06.01.2020. The
complainant alleged that he agreed to sell his entire land at the rate of Rs.01 crore
25 lacs per acre in the presence of witness Dharminder son of Kartar Singh,
resident of village Garhi Bala, whereas all accused in conspiracy with each other,
with an intention to swallow his land committed cheating and forgery by
preparing three pages of agreement No.13668 and after replacing the pages,
showed lesser sale consideration of only Rs.25 lacs per acre, whereas in remaining
two agreements, two pages were written, whereas all three agreements were
prepared on the same day i.e. 07.03.2019. Till stipulated date i.e. 06.01.2020 the
accused could not make arrangement for money and said that they could not
arrange money. They requested the return of their earnest money and stated that
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -3-
the complainant may sell his land elsewhere, as complainant’s land is free.
Thereafter, on 12.02.2020 the complainant returned Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and
gave cheque of Rs.47 lacs to the accused who accepted the entire money and after
sufficient time, on the asking of the accused, the complainant sold his land to M/s
Celestial Valley LLP vide sale deed dated 07.05.2019. The accused by using the
alleged false agreement No.13668 filed false case against the complainant. On
receipt of summons from the Court, the complainant came to know about entire
forgery done by the accused. When he confronted the accused, the accused asked
to get registered the sale deed in their names at the rate of Rs.25 lacs per acre,
otherwise he and his family would be ruined. When the complainant told accused
that he has returned their money by selling his land and as to why they were doing
so with him, then accused said that they want Rs.6 crores, which money be given
either by the complainant or the money be got paid from the company to whom he
has sold the land and if he failed to pay the money as demanded by them, then he
will be shot dead. The complainant apprehend danger to his life and property from
the accused.
3. A perusal of the above shows that the main allegations against the
petitioners are that they have forged and fabricated an agreement to sell No.13668
wherein the price of sale consideration was got written only as Rs.25,00,000/- per
acre instead of Rs.1.25 crore per acre. It is further alleged that petitioner Sanjay
and Yogesh Kumar filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 07.03.2019 alongwith the relief of declaration and
injunction under Section 26 of the C.P.C. and Section 34 and 38 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 against the complainant and one Shivank Garg on 13.01.2022.
3 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -4-
It is further alleged that the complainant-respondent No.2
clandestinely transferred an amount of Rs.47,00,000/- to the account of the
petitioners through RTGS on 10.12.2021 without their consent. A legal notice
dated 13.12.2021 was also sent to the complainant-respondent No.2.
Subsequently, Subhash (petitioner No.6) filed a civil suit for rectification of
instrument of agreement and for consequential relief of specific performance of
contract under the relevant provisions of the civil law.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the matter is
purely civil in nature as it arises out of an agreement to sell and a civil suit has
been filed for specific performance of contract. Therefore, no offence would be
made out as stated in the FIR in question.
5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2-complainant argued that a complete forgery has been committed
by the petitioners in connivance with each other by fraudulently changing the
price money as Rs.25,00,000/- only instead of Rs.1.25 crore per acre. He further
submits that criminal and civil proceedings are different things and both can co-
exist if there is a sufficient prima facie case against the accused persons. He relied
upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court passed in Kathyayini Versus
Sidharth P.s. Reddy and others, reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 1428¸wherein
it has been held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter is
no justification to quash criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against
the accused persons. Criminal and Civil remedies can co-exist and are not
mutually exclusive.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that a complaint was received from
the office of Superintendent of Police, Sonipat, from the perusal of which
4 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -5-
cognizable offences were made out. Hence, the FIR in question was registered
under the relevant Sections of the IPC. He further submits that although there may
be agreement to sell between the parties, but the prima facie ingredients of forgery
of document(s) are clearly made out, for which investigation is necessary and as
such, no ground is made out to quash the FIR at this stage.
7. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the respective parties as
well as the learned State Counsel and has gone through the documents and
material available on record.
8. A perusal of the agreement to sell in question shows that there is no
visible cutting/alteration at any place. It is a registered agreement to sell and
before the numeric digits ‘Rs.25,00,000/-‘ the words ‘Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs
per acre’ have been clearly mentioned. Therefore, on the face of it, there is no
apparent forgery, addition or alteration in the amount mentioned as sale
consideration. Moreover, the complainant himself admitted that when the sale
deed was not executed by the petitioners, then after waiting for sufficient time, he
had sold his land to M/s Celestial Valley LLP vide sale deed dated 07.05.2021.
Surprisingly, the sale consideration has been mentioned herein as Rs.35 lacs per
acre only. This fact gives strength to the case of the petitioners that there would
possibly be no agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crore per acre
in 2019, when the property in question has been sold by the complainant at the
rate of Rs.35 lacs per acre in 2021. In such like matters, the FIR is a pure tactic to
escape from civil liability of executing and registering the sale deed in favour of
the petitioners, especially in light of the fact that the petitioners/vendees were
present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 07.03.2019 for execution and registration
of the sale deed, i.e. the date which is mentioned in the agreement to sell, but
5 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -6-
when the complainant did not turn up, they got their presence marked by way of
getting their affidavits attested from the concerned Sub-Registrar and their
photographs were also taken there. This fact makes it very clear that if was the
complainant and not the petitioners who had not honoured the terms and
conditions of the agreement to sell and the complainant has resorted to lodging of
a criminal case against the petitioners just to escape from his legal civil liability.
Hence this Court does not find any merit in the contentions of learned Senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2.
9. In State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court has laid down illustrative categories where quashing
of proceedings is justified. These are: –
(1) Where the allegations made in the first 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 FIR 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 the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order6 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -7-
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress 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.”
10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has, in a long line of decisions,
deprecated the tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings. In
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd.; (2006) 6 SCC 736, it was held
that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or
contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process of law. The
following paragraphs from the decision are apposite:
“9. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For
this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but
without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a
detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor7 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -8-
an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of
the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is
found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for
wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or
scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal
ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual
foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that
a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint
is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the
basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the
offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or
(b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a
criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual
dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking
remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the
nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a
criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to
a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a
civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a
ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether
the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or
not.
10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into
8 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -9-
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 irretrievable 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 settlement 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.”
11. Recently, in Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others. Criminal Appeal No. 2963/2025 decided on
14.07.2025: (2025 INSC 869) Hon’ble the Supreme Court has disapproved the
practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies, observing
that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the
dispute is essentially civil. The Court cautioned High Courts not to direct
settlements in such matters but to apply the principles settled in the case of
Bhajan Lal (supra). The following paragraphs are relevant in this context:
“9. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral
agreement between the parties. The Respondent No.4 might have
parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and
it may be that the appellant-herein owes a particular amount to be
paid to the Respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima
facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed
by the appellant.
10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to
constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more
than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the
accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The9 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -10-plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of
criminality.”
11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement
of this Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited, v. State
of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said
decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal
breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It
appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However,
instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court
thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by
making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a
condition precedent. We fail to understand why the High Court
should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the
petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition
saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High
Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the
amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or
Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may
be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it
under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB
Code, 2016.
12. Why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire
dispute between the parties is of a civil nature.
13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has
initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears
that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date.
Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute
between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking
the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of the process of law.
14. We could have said many things but we refrain from observing
anything further If the Respondent No.4 has to recover a particular
10 of 12
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -11-
amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy
available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of
criminal proceedings.
15. We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court
has passed the impugned order. The High Court first directed the
appellant to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the Respondent No.4 and
thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. That’s not what is
expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of
FIR or any other criminal proceedings. What is expected of the High
Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the
FIR along with the other material on record, if any. The High Court
seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in
the decision of this Court in the “State of Haryana & Others v.
Bhajan Lal & Others” Reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.
13. This Court, however, does not dispute the ratio of law laid down by
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Kathyayini (supra) relied upon by the
learned senior counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2, but at the same time,
keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court
is of the considered opinion that there is no prima facie case made out against the
petitioners, especially in light of the conduct of the complainant-respondent No.2,
who claims that the sale consideration in the year 2019 was agreed to be Rs.1.25
crore per acre, whereas in 2021, he sells his land at a much cheaper rate i.e.
Rs.35,00,000/- per acre. In this light of the matter, the case law of Kathyayini
(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
CRM-M-48399-2022 (O&M) -12-
14. In the case in hand, prima facie the allegations against the petitioners
are not made out as the agreement to sell in question is a genuine document being
a registered agreement. There is no allegation of cutting or overwriting, which
could be apparent on the record and the allegation that “Rs.25,00,000/-” was
mentioned instead of “Rs.1.25 crore” is totally absurd especially in the light of the
fact that the complainant himself sold his land subsequently at a very low price i.e.
Rs.35 lacs per acre. Therefore, applying the ratio of law laid down in the case of
Bhajan Lal (supra) and other case laws discussed hereinabove, this Court is of
the opinion that FIR in question is an abuse of process of law and has been lodged
to settle the civil scores only.
15. Resultantly, the FIR No.0028 dated 13.01.2022 under Sections 120-
B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC registered at Police Station City Sonipat, District
Sonipat (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed qua the petitioners alongwith all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the challan (Annexure P-3)
under Sections 120-B, 180, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
16. Petition stands allowed accordingly.
17. Other misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.
(H.S. GREWAL)
FEBRUARY 23, 2026. JUDGE
Rajender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2026 02:23:48 :::
