Uttarakhand High Court
Vaibhav Agrawal And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 July, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Judgment reserved on:03.06.2026
Judgment delivered on:17.07.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.638 of 2025
Vaibhav Agrawal and others. ..................Petitioners.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ...............Respondents.
Present:
Ms. Bani Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a
writ of certiorari to quash the FIR dated 20.03.2025, bearing FIR
No.0011 of 2025, Police Station, Laxamnjhula, District Pauri
Garhwal lodged by the respondent/complainant against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420,
467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. The matter was heard at length on 03.06.2026, and
judgment was reserved and both the parties also submitted their
written submission.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition
as per the record are that the complainant/respondent no.3 Sanjay
Singh Rawat, and his wife executed two registered agreement to
sell on 05.04.2023, in favour of the petitioner no.1 Shri Vaibhav
Agrawal and petitioner no.2 Ms. Shivani Agrawal respectively,
for sale of a piece of land measuring 0.3345 hectares
(approximately 4000 square yards/16.66 Nali) at village Kund,
Block Yamakeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal, with a sale
2
consideration of Rs.3,39,00,000/- (Rs.3.39 crore). After receiving
the entire sale consideration, the informant and his wife refused to
execute the sale deeds. Consequently, the petitioners preferred
two separate civil suits for enforcement of each of the agreement
to sell dated 05.04.2023 as well as lodge the FIR. In the civil suits,
there is an interim injunction order restraining the respondent
no.3 from creating any third party interest over the property in
question, which continues to be in operation.
4. In the FIR lodged by the petitioners against the respondent
no.3 on 13.06.2024 bearing FIR No.0040 of 2024, the informant and
his wife were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Now the respondent no.3 also lodged
the FIR on 20.03.2025 bearing FIR No.0011 of 2025 against the
petitioners, which is now being assailed in this petition.
A. Submission on behalf of petitioners:-
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Ms. Bani Dixit, submits
that the crux of the matter is that the informant/respondent no.3
and his wife executed two registered agreement to sell on
05.04.2023 with the petitioner nos.1 and 2 respectively for sale of a
piece of land measuring 0.3345 hectares (approximately 4000
square yards/16.66 Nali) at village Kund, Block Yamakeshwar,
District Pauri Garhwal, with the total sale consideration of
Rs.3,39,00,000/- (Rs.3.39 crore). She submits that the petitioner
no.1 paid Rs.75,00,000/- in advance through cheques and the
entire sale consideration was also subsequently paid through A/c
payee cheques, and there is no dispute on this, and in total Rs.3.39
crore, was paid to the informant and his wife.
6. She further argued that the requisite permissions in terms of
Section 154 of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 was obtained by the
3
respondent no.3 himself from the Collector/District Magistrate on
20.11.2023, which was later on intimated by him to the petitioners
through Whatsapp communication on 21.11.2023. She submits
that having received the permission and receipt the balance sale
consideration from petitioners, the informant and his wife
deliberately and dishonestly refused to execute the sale deed.
Consequently, the petitioners have no option except to initiate the
civil and criminal proceedings.
7. She submits that in order to protect their legal right, the
petitioner no.1 filed a Civil Suit No.09 of 2024, titled as “Vaibhav
Agrawal Vs. Sanjay Singh Rawat and another” and the petitioner
no.2 also filed another Civil Suit No.10 of 2024, “Shivani Agrawal
Vs. Sanjay Singh Rawat and another” before the learned Civil
Judge, (Senior Division), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal,
praying for permanent injunction as well as for consequential
reliefs.
8. In these civil suits, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)
granted an interim injunction in favour of petitioners on
20.02.2024, by restraining the informant/respondent no.3 from
creating any third party interest over the property in question and
which continues to be in operation.
9. She submits that since there was regular threat from the
informant and his wife, consequently an FIR was also lodged on
13.06.2024 against them by the petitioners bearing Case Crime
No.0040 of 2024, at Police Station Laxmanjhula, District Pauri
Garhwal, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420
of IPC, wherein, after thorough investigation, the Investigating
Officer submit the chargesheet on 04.09.2024, by chargesheeting
the informant and his wife for the offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
4
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the
remedies as availed by the petitioners i.e. the civil suits as well as
the criminal proceedings, are the proceedings legitimately
initiated by the petitioners.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
FIR No.0040 of 2024 lodged by the petitioners against the
informant and his wife was earlier challenged in WPCRL No.879
of 2024, wherein, on 21.08.2024, an interim protection was granted
to them that no coercive action shall be taken against them,
provided they cooperate with the investigation, however
subsequently the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous
on 19.03.2025 since the chargesheet was filed, and on the very next
day i.e. on 20.03.2025, the respondent no.3 lodged the impugned
FIR bearing FIR No.0011 of 2025 at Police Station Laxmanjhula,
District Pauri Garhwal, against both the petitioners.
12. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the impugned FIR is nothing but is a manifestly malafide counter
blast to the legitimate civil proceedings initiated by the petitioners
by way of Civil Suit No.09 of 2024 and Civil Suit No.10 of 2024,
wherein, the temporary injunction was granted and continues to
be in operation as well as counter blast to the FIR lodged by the
petitioners bearing Case Crime No.0040 of 2024, wherein, both the
informant and his wife have been chargesheeted on 04.09.2024 for
the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
13. She submits that the lodging of the impugned FIR merely
one day after the dismissal of WPCRL No.879 of 2024, was not
coincidence, but a malafide intent on the part of the informant in
lodging the impugned FIR solely to mount pressure on the
petitioners and to intimidate them from pursuing their pending
5
civil suits as well as the chargesheet dated 04.09.2024 arising out
of Case Crime No.0040 of 2024 lodged by petitioners.
14. She further argued that the allegations as alleged in the
impugned FIR are that the petitioners had presented certain
forged documents containing forged signature of the informant
before the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, for procuring the
permission in terms of Section 154 of the UPZA & LR Act, though
the admitted position is that the permissions under Section 154 of
UPZA & LR Act, dated 20.11.2023, was obtained by the informant
himself from the office of Collector/District Magistrate for the
petitioners, which is evident from the fact that the respondent
no.3/informant himself communicated such permission to the
petitioners via Whatsapp message on 21.11.2023, and thereafter
also received the balance sale consideration from the petitioners,
therefore, the allegations that the petitioners procured these
permissions by forgery, is absurd and false.
15. She submits that the Collector/District Magistrate by
subsequent order dated 28.02.2025, cancelled the permission in
Miscellaneous Case No.01 of 2024, only on a procedural ground
since sale deed could not be executed within the stipulated
period of 180 days’ from the date of permission and even no
application for extension of time was moved. She further submits
that the order dated 28.02.2025, does not in any manner record
that the permissions were cancelled on account of any fraudulent
activities, forgery of signatures or misrepresentation by the
petitioners, which itself reveals that the allegations as alleged by
the informant in the impugned FIR are imaginary and
afterthought.
16. In addition to this, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process
6
of law, lodged with malafide intent which is evident from the fact
that the petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5, have been roped into the
impugned FIR without any basis only in order to mount pressure
upon them. In reference to this she make following submissions:-
“(1). “Petitioner no.3, Shri Sushant Agrawal”, is the
father of petitioner no.1 and he is neither a party nor a
signatory of two agreements to sell dated 05.04.2023, even he
is neither a buyer, seller nor witness in any of the transaction
and as such no criminal liability can therefore be attributed to
him in connection with the allegations as alleged in the
impugned FIR.
(2). “Petitioner no.4 Shri Sanjay Kalra”, is a Chartered
Accountant by profession, who has been associated in a
professional advisory capacity with the petitioner no.3 Sri
Sushant Agrawal, and he has no bearing on the subject
matter of the impugned FIR, since he is neither a buyer, seller
nor the witness under the agreement to sell.
(3), “Petitioner no.5 Shri Naveen Chetal”, acts solely in
the capacity of a property dealer and was responsible only for
facilitating the introduction between the parties to the
transaction and his role was limited to bringing the parties
together and he had no further involvement neither in the
transaction forming the subject matter of the impugned FIR
nor a buyer, seller and even witness under the agreement to
sell.
17. She submits that implicating petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5 in the
impugned FIR appears to be a pressure tactics and so far as the
petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they have been implicated
in the impugned FIR, which appears to be counter blast to the
7
remedies as availed by the petitioners by way of civil suits as well
as by FIR.
18. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
implicating petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5 in the impugned FIR despite
their having no role either in the transaction or in execution of
agreement to sell itself indicates that with malafide intent they
have been implicated in the impugned FIR.
19. She further submits that in fact the entire dispute is purely
civil in nature arising from registered agreement to sell dated
05.04.2023, in respect of which, civil suits have already been filed
which are pending, wherein, the informant and his wife are
arrayed as defendants, and this fact is very well in their
knowledge that there is an interim injunction order, which
continues to be in operation, despite this, the impugned FIR have
been lodged.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that even from
the face of the FIR itself no cognizable offence is made out and
the allegations of forgery are entirely false as evident from the
order of the Collector/District Magistrate dated 28.02.2025,
whereby the permission was cancelled only on a procedural
ground, since, within the stipulated period of 180 days’ sale deed
was not executed and the reason for non execution of sale deed
was that despite receiving the entire sale consideration the
informant and his wife have not come forward for execution of
sale deed, and now under the garb that the permission has been
cancelled by the Collector they are not refunding their money
which is a mischievous act and this is the reason that in the FIR
lodged by the petitioners, the informant and his wife have been
chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 406 of
8
420 of IPC by chargesheet dated 04.09.2024 and now after almost
six months impugned FIR has been lodged.
21. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that even otherwise in the impugned FIR, the essential
ingredients of cheating are absent since there was no dishonest or
fraudulent intent at the inception of the transactions, and all
payments were made through Account Payee cheques, pursuant
to the registered agreement to sell dated 05.04.2023. She further
submits that the continuation of the investigation pursuant to the
impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law,
particularly when, the impugned FIR has been lodged after
institution of the civil suits by the petitioners against the
informant.
22. She further submits that in fact the petitioners are the real
victims of the fraud committed by the respondent no.3 and his
wife, who have already been chargesheeted in the FIR lodged by
the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and
420 of IPC.
23. Learned counsel submits that the present case is squarely
falls within the categories as enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal” reported
in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, particularly Category (1), (5) and (7).
24. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance to a
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Indian Oil
Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd., reported in 2006 (6) SCC
736, wherein, it has been held that the criminal law cannot be
used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual
matters. Paragraph nos.13 and 14 of the said decision are being
reproduced herein as under:-
9
“13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a
growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil
disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a
prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming
and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors.
Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading
to 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
through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and
discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP ], this Court
observed :
“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil
nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Before issuing process a
criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution.
For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has
laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court
is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should
be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a
complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being
fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and
his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made
accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal
proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can
be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and
harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power
under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern
malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the
complainant. Be that as it may.
25. She also placed reliance to another judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Shailesh Kumar Singh @
Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others“,
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1462, wherein, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has emphatically reiterated that “to constitute an
offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima
10
facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to
cheat the complainant right from the inception”.
26. She further placed reliance to another decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ankul Singh Vs. State of
U.P.” reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2060, by placing reliance
to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads
as under:-
“14. It is significant to note that prior to registration of the
present FIR, the appellant had already initiated proceedings
against Respondent No.2, namely a complaint under Section
138 of the N.I. Act (Complaint No. 2402840 / 2005) before the
N.I. Court, Moradabad, as well as FIR No. 120/2002, in which,
the complainant himself was arrested. The present FIR was
lodged nearly three months after the filing of the Section
138 complaint and seven months after FIR No. 120/2002. The
plea that the FIR is a retaliatory counterblast to the proceedings
legitimately initiated by the appellant, therefore, carries
substantial weight.
15. The mala fide nature of the complaint is further fortified by
the fact that, by judgment dated 15.01.2025, the trial Court
convicted Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the N. I. Act,
sentencing him to one month’s imprisonment and imposing a
fine of Rs. 90,000/-. This conviction lends strong support to the
appellant’s case that the initiation of the present FIR was a
retaliatory measure, maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive to neutralise the lawful action taken by him.”
27. By placing reliance to the aforesaid judgments, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners
already initiated the civil and criminal proceedings against the
informant and his wife, which itself establishes the malafide
character of lodging of the impugned FIR.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioners concluded her argument
that in the present case, the agreement to sell dated 05.04.2023, is
registered document, therefore, the allegations of forgery in order
to procure permission are totally absurd, particularly when, there
is no allegation of any cutting, overwriting and tampering, in the
11
order of District Magistrate in cancelling the permission,
therefore, no offence is made out. She further argued that there is
no dispute that the entire sale consideration has been received by
the informant and his wife, despite this, they never turn up for
execution of the sale deed and even their amount has not been
returned which shows dishonest intention of the informant.
B. Submission on behalf of Respondent/Informant.
29. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent Mr.
Lalit Sharma, submits that the informant are the owner of a land
situated at Village Kund, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, and in the year
2023, the petitioners approached them in connection with the
Resort Project and obtained ownership record, revenue record
and project documents and other confidential papers relating to
the property, and subsequently, the complainant discovered that
petitioners had initiated the proceedings for obtaining permission
under Section 154 of UPZA & LR Act, for purchasing a land
situated in State of Uttarakhand and while seeking permission
from the authorities, the petitioners submitted his affidavit as
well as affidavit of the complainant and moved application with
supporting documents containing forged signatures for obtaining
permission to purchase the land since they are the resident of
outside the State of Uttarakhand and there is a mandatory
condition to obtain permission from the Collector to purchase the
land in the State of Uttarakhand.
30. He further submits that the entire foundation of the writ
petition proceeds on an assumption that the dispute between the
parties is purely of civil in nature arising out of certain
agreements, though as a matter of fact, from the contents of the
FIR, the allegations as alleged, therein, travelling far beyond the
scope as alleged by the petitioners in the petition.
12
31. He submits that in fact the impugned FIR has been lodged
much prior to the date when the complaint was made to the
authorities regarding forged signatures in obtaining the
permission under Section 154 of the UPZA & LR Act, and the
complainant pursued his complaint as well as the complaint of
the co-tenure holders and local residents and an administrative
enquiry was also conducted, wherein, the petitioners were asked
to appear on 13.03.2024 and again on 24.04.2024 for the
verification of the disputed documents and signatures, despite
this, they failed to cooperate and subsequently a complaint was
uploaded in the CM portal on 03.11.2024, alleging, therein, that
the signatures appearing on the “No Objection Certificate” are
forged and subsequently on 11.11.2024, the concerned authority
acknowledged the necessity of inquiry into the allegations. He
submits that the District Magistrate, also conducted a detail
inquiry into the allegations, wherein, the statement of the several
persons, including the co-tenure holders were recorded on
06.01.2025, and in their statement, they categorically denied about
execution of the affidavits and issuance of “No Objection
Certificate”.
32. He further submits that the inquiry report specifically noted
serious discrepancy in the signatures on an affidavit, “No
Objection Certificate’ as well as other documents submitted
during the proceeding of Section 154 of UPZA & LR Act, and
subsequently the District Magistrate cancelled the permission by
order dated 28.02.2025. He further submits that the impugned
FIR is the culmination of long chain of complaints and inquiry,
and therefore, the impugned FIR at this stage when the
investigation is going on cannot be quashed.
13
33. He further submits that admittedly the petitioners belong to
the different State, therefore, it is mandatory upon them to get the
permission from the Government however in order to secure
permission from the Government, the signatures of the informant
and other co-tenure holders were forged which prima facie
constitute an offence. He submits that the impugned FIR
discloses the cognizable offence and as such cannot be quashed.
34. He further submits that the FIR is supported by the
complaint of co-tenure holders and on the inquiry of revenue
officials. He further submits that the petitioners have attempted
to portray that the impugned FIR is counter blast to the
proceedings initiated by them and the said contentions are
wholly misconceived. He also submits that the investigation is at
a crucial stage and scientific evidence is yet to be collected and
while granting interim protection to the petitioners vide order
dated 30.05.2026, the petitioners were directed to cooperate with
the ongoing investigation, therefore, on this account also, the FIR
cannot be quashed. He further submits that the petitioners have
not cooperated with the investigation and the disputed question
of fact cannot be examined in a petition, wherein, a relief was
sought for quashing of the FIR and it is settled principle of law
that while exercising jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal
proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or
written finding on disputed factual aspects. He further submits
that the petitioners have not disclose about the criminal
antecedents of one case bearing FIR No.244 of 2026, registered at
Police Station DLF Gurugram, and is also is an accused in another
FIR lodged at Noida.
35. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant placed
reliance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
14
“Zeba Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others” reported in 2026 SCC
Online SC 188 and “Sharla Bazliel Vs. Baldev Thakur and
others”, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 396, as well as the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra“.
C. Submission on behalf of State.
36. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA for the State submits that
the investigation is going on in reference to the impugned FIR,
however, he submits that while registration of the impugned FIR
the complainant have not disclosed about pending civil suits.
D. Analysis & Conclusion
37. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length and perused the material placed on record.
38. The genesis of the dispute in between the parties
admittedly arises from a civil transaction pursuant to an
agreement to sell dated 05.04.2023, against which the petitioners
paid a substantial amount towards sale consideration amounting
to Rs.3.39 crore, and there is no denial from the informant to this
effect however, despite receiving the full sale consideration in
terms of two agreement to sell, the informant failed to execute the
sale deed within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the
petitioners approached to the competent civil court by way of
two suits bearing Civil Suit No.09 of 2024, “Vaibhav Agrawal
Vs. Sanjay Singh Rawat and another” and Civil Suit No.10 of
2024, “Shivani Agrawal Vs. Sanjay Singh Rawat and another”
wherein, the informant and his wife are arrayed as a defendants
and the civil court grants temporary injunction order in favour of
the petitioners on 20.02.2024, restraining defendants from creating
15any third party interest over the property in question, which
continues to be in operation.
39. Furthermore, the petitioners had previously lodged a First
Information Report on 13.06.2024 bearing FIR No.0040 of 2024,
wherein, on culminating of the investigation, the informant and
his wife were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 of IPC on 04.09.2024, and the informant
preferred criminal writ petition No. 879 of 2024 challenging the
FIR dated 13.06.2024 bearing FIR No.0040 of 2024, which was
dismissed as infructuous on 19.03.2025 since the chargesheet was
filed and admittedly on the very next day, the informant lodged
the impugned FIR on 20.03.2025 bearing FIR No.0011 of 2025 at
P.S. Laxmanjhula, District Pauri Garhwal implicating both the
petitioners, which itself reveals that subsequent criminal
machinery was set in motion by the informant by lodging the
impugned FIR against the petitioners as a retaliatory measure,
cloaking a fundamental civil dispute into a criminal due to wreak
private vengeance.
40. There is no dispute that the petitioners filed civil suits,
wherein, the injunction order is granted, which continues to be in
operation and furthermore there is no dispute that an amount of
Rs.3.39 crore was paid to the respondent, and the complainant
and his wife have also been chargesheeted in the FIR lodged by
the petitioners, but interestingly there is no whisper in the written
submissions in this regard. Thus, the admitted position is that the
respondent/complainant lodged the impugned FIR in counter
blast to the civil remedies as availed by the petitioners as well as
the counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners.
41. As it reveals from the contents of the FIR, the primary
allegations in the impugned FIR is that the petitioners forged the
16
informant’s signatures to procure permission from the District
Magistrate, which in fact is a mandatory requirement in terms of
Section 154 of Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for the
buyer residing outside the State to purchase a land in the State of
Uttarakhand. The record reveals that the permission was
cancelled by the Collector/District Magistrate since within the
statutory period of 180 days no sale deed was executed and the
reason as pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
despite full and final payment towards sale consideration, the
informant never turned up to execute the sale deed nor refund the
amount. The record further reveals that the Collector cancelled the
permission by operation of law and due to the non fulfillment of
the statutory requirement, therefore, after perusing the record it
reveals that no useful benefit was derived by the petitioners nor
did any wrongful loss occurred to the informant out of the alleged
forged NOC and neither there is any dishonsest or fraudulent
intention of the petitioners at inception since the huge amount of
Rs.3.39 crore was paid by the petitioners to the
informant/respondent no.3, which has not been denied by the
informant.
42. On the other side, the informant’s contentions that the
petitioners failed to disclose their criminal antecedents has no
relevance to the issue in hand particularly when the petitioners
are challenging a particular FIR. Furthermore, the informant place
reliance heavily on the administrative inquiry pointing towards
signatures discrepancies and such a finding of the administrative
inquiry cannot override the gross abuse of process of law in
lodging the impugned FIR, the informant has failed to give any
plausible explanation as to why the petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5 were
roped into the impugned FIR though they have no nexus with the
transaction in between the parties, which itself reveals that an
17
attempt was made to over implicate the petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5,
and this Court is not hesitating to draw a conclusion that all such
an attempt has been made to exert undue coercive pressure upon
the petitioners, which is nothing but the act in retaliation which
appears to be in counter blast to the civil proceedings initiated by
the petitioners by way of two civil suits as well as counter blast to
the FIR lodged by the petitioners, wherein, on culmination of
investigation the informant and his wife has been chargesheeted
and such an attempt appears to be an abuse of process of law,
particularly when, on the very next day of dismissal of
informant’s petition, the impugned FIR has been lodged.
43. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently deprecated the
practice growing tendency of converting purely civil and
commercial dispute into a criminal offence. In the landmark
decision in the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal“, 1992
Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court carved out specific
categories where the High Court must invoke its inherent power
to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of law
and the present case falls squarely within the Category (7), which
reads as under:-
“Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide 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.”
44. In the present case interestingly the informant
harping upon the NOC alleged to be forged in order to procure
permission from the District Magistrate which was subsequently
cancelled by the Collector and also harping upon the criminal
antecedents of the petitioners, but surprisingly there is no
18
whisper about the huge amount which he has received from the
petitioners. Sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the
petitioners were victimized by the informant by lodging the
impugned FIR that too after the institution of the civil suits by the
petitioners in the year 2024, wherein, the temporary injunction
order was granted restraining the informant from creating any
third party interest and also after lodging the FIR lodged by the
petitioners, wherein, the informant and his wife have been
chargesheeted much prior to lodging of the impugned FIR. Thus,
this Court is of the view that registration of the impugned FIR is
gross abuse of process of law and appears to be a glaring example
of malicious prosecution initiated solely to neutralize the pending
civil suits as well as the previous chargesheet pending against the
informant.
45. Thus chronology of events clearly reveals that the
Respondent lodged subsequent FIR only after being
chargesheeted in the petitioner’s prior FIR, and after being
restrained in the parallel civil proceedings. To allow such an
investigation to continue based on allegations that are entirely
vague, non-specific and lacking the basic ingredients of a
cognizable offence, would amount to a gross abuse of the judicial
process. The machinery of criminal law cannot be used as a tool
for harassment or as a weapon to settle civil disputes.
46. Even otherwise, order of District Magistrate/Collector
dated 28.02.2025 reveals that the permission was cancelled only
on a procedural ground since the sale deed was not executed
within the stipulated time frame which itself falsifies the
Respondent’s allegation in the impugned FIR that the petitioner
forged the signature in order to fraudently to procure permission.
19
47. The record establishes that the petitioner paid Rs.3.39 crore
to the Respondent. The delay in execution of sale deed was
entirely attributable to the Respondent, who failed to turn up for
the execution of the sale deed despite receiving huge amount
towards sale consideration that too after due permission in terms
of Section 154 of UPZA & LR Act as prevailing in the State of
Uttarakhand which was communicated by the informant himself
to the petitioners through Whatsapp. The petitioners cannot be
held responsible for a procedural lapse forced upon them by the
Respondent’s own default.
48. Admittedly the competent authority cancelled the
permission solely due to the expiration of stipulated period and
not on any finding or allegation of fraud or forgery and as well as
the very substance of the impugned FIR is completely
demolished. The criminal allegation of forgery are a plain
fabrication, engineered to give a fraudulent criminal colour to a
civil breach committed by the Respondent themselves. The
judgment as relied upon by the respondent/informant has no
application to the facts of the case in hand.
49. Consequently, applying the settled principles laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal” (Supra), which still hold a good law, this Court is of
the firm opinion that the interest of justice demands the
invocation of it’s inherent powers to prevent further miscarriage
of justice.
50. Accordingly, the instant criminal writ petition is allowed.
The impugned FIR dated 20.03.2025, bearing FIR No.0011 of 2025,
registered at Police Station Laxmanjhula, District Pauri Garhwal,
and all the consequential proceedings arising out of it is hereby
quashed.
20
51. It is made clear that the observations made herein shall have
no bearing on the pending civil suits between the parties, and the
concerned Civil Court is free to proceed with the civil suits without
being influenced with the observations as above.
52. All pending applications are closed. No order as to costs.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
17.07.2026
NR
