Jagjit Singh Swaitch @ Jeeta And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

244 CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M)
Date of decision : 03.11.2026

JAGJIT SINGH SWAITCH @ JEETA AND ORS
... PETITIONERS
Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
... RESPONDENTS

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:- Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab.
*

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.172 dated 04.09.2021,
registered under Sections 420, 379 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Sadar
Khanna, District Ludhiana, along with all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. The case of the prosecution is that co-accused Mahan Singh
(father of petitioners No.1 & 2) entered into an agreement to sell dated
27.09.2019 with respondent No.2/complainant in respect of land measuring 2
kanals and 10 marlas, out of a total land measuring 8 kanals and 3 marlas. As
per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed in favour of the
complainant after repayment of the loan amount outstanding against the land
with the bank. The possession of the land was also to be delivered at the time
of execution of the sale deed. The grievance of the complainant is that Mahan
Singh failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement and allegedly
SONIA GUGNANI
2026.11.05 14.59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M) -2-

concealed the fact that the land in question had already been mortgaged with
the bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated in the present case and that no specific allegation
of cheating or criminal breach of trust is made against them. It is submitted that
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of co-accused Mahan Singh, whereas
petitioner No.3 has been implicated merely because he is a co-sharer in the land
in question. None of the petitioners was a party to the agreement to sell dated
27.09.2019, nor did they sign the same or witness its execution. Learned
counsel further submits that the agreement to sell itself clearly shows that the
land in question was already mortgaged with the bank and that the sale deed
was to be executed after repayment of the outstanding loan amount. Therefore,
the allegation that the factum of mortgage was concealed from the complainant
is contrary to the terms of the agreement itself. It is further submitted that the
complainant has already filed a civil suit for specific performance of the
agreement to sell against co-accused Mahan Singh, without impleading the
present petitioners as parties to the said suit. It is further contended that
petitioner No.3 has no concern with the alleged transaction and has
independently filed a civil suit seeking partition of the land in question. Thus,
his implication in the present FIR is wholly unjustified. Learned counsel argues
that the entire dispute essentially arises out of an agreement to sell and relates
to non-execution of the sale deed and non-delivery of possession of the land.
The dispute is, therefore, purely civil in nature, and the complainant has given
it a criminal colour by lodging the present FIR. Learned counsel also submits
that the basic ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not made out against
SONIA GUGNANI
2026.11.05 14.59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M) -3-

the petitioners as there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the
petitioners or dishonest misappropriation thereof. Similarly, there is no material
to show that the petitioners had any dishonest intention from the very inception
of the transaction or that they had induced the complainant to part with money
by making any fraudulent representation. It is, therefore, prayed for quashing of
the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the short reply
filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. Amritpal Singh, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Khanna, District Ludhiana, submits
that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and their
specific roles have emerged during the course of investigation. It is submitted
that petitioner No.1, Jagjit Singh @ Jeeta, in connivance with the co-accused,
₹
cheated the complainant, Shivmunni Devi, by obtaining an amount of 17 lakh
from her under an agreement to sell, despite being fully aware that the land in
question formed part of a joint holding and that the sale deed could not be
executed. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2, Surinderpal Singh @
Shindi, in furtherance of the common intention, actively participated in the
theft of 20 cement poles installed by the complainant on the land in question. It
is also submitted that petitioner No.3, Gurinderpal Singh, is also alleged to
₹
have conspired with the other accused in cheating the complainant of 17 lakh
and committing theft of the cement poles. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of
the present petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.
SONIA GUGNANI
2026.11.05 14.59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M) -4-

6. A perusal of the allegations shows that the agreement to sell dated
27.09.2019 was executed by co-accused Mahan Singh, father of petitioner
Nos.1 and 2, in favour of respondent No.2/complainant. Admittedly, none of
the present petitioners was a signatory to the said agreement. There is also no
material to indicate that any of the petitioners had executed the agreement or
had undertaken any obligation thereunder to execute the sale deed in favour of
the complainant.
7. Firstly, the primary allegation with regard to non-execution of the
sale deed, despite receipt of the sale consideration, is directed against co-
accused Mahan Singh, who had entered into the contractual arrangement with
the complainant. Insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, their
implication in the present case appears to be primarily on account of their
relationship with co-accused Mahan Singh. Similarly, petitioner No.3 has been
implicated on account of being a co-sharer in the land in question. In the
present case, the material placed on record does not disclose any specific act on
the part of the petitioners whereby they had induced the complainant to part
₹
with the amount of 17 lakh or had made any fraudulent representation to her.
8. Secondly, the complainant has already instituted a civil suit
seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell against co-accused
Mahan Singh. The said civil proceedings relate to the very same transaction
which forms the basis of the present FIR. Petitioner No.3, on the other hand, is
stated to have independently instituted a civil suit seeking partition of the land
in question. The existence of civil proceedings, by itself, may not be sufficient
to quash criminal proceedings; however, the nature of the transaction, the terms
of the agreement and the specific role attributed to the petitioners have to be
SONIA GUGNANI
2026.11.05 14.59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M) -5-

examined to determine whether the allegations disclose the commission of any
criminal offence. In the present case, the dispute essentially arises out of the
non-execution of the sale deed and the consequential claim of the complainant
for enforcement of her contractual rights.
9. Thirdly, as regards the allegation relating to theft of 20 cement
poles installed by the complainant on the land in question, the material placed
on record does not indicate that the petitioners were in possession of the land or
that they had removed the said poles. Rather, the agreement itself contemplated
delivery of possession at the time of execution of the sale deed. In the absence
of any specific material indicating the participation of the petitioners in the
alleged removal of the cement poles, their implication in this regard also
appears to be lacking in a sufficient factual foundation.
10. It is a settled proposition of law that the mere existence of a civil
dispute does not automatically exclude the applicability of criminal law. A
transaction may give rise to both civil and criminal consequences, provided the
necessary ingredients of the alleged criminal offences are disclosed. However,
in order to constitute the offence of cheating, there must be material to indicate
dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction, coupled
with inducement resulting in delivery of property. Similarly, the offence of
criminal breach of trust requires the foundational element of entrustment and
dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the property entrusted. In the
present case, no material has been brought to the notice of this Court to
demonstrate that the petitioners had dishonestly induced the complainant to
part with the amount in question or that any property had been entrusted to
them and subsequently misappropriated by them. The mere non-performance of
SONIA GUGNANI
2026.11.05 14.59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M) -6-

contractual obligations by the person who executed the agreement cannot, in
the absence of the requisite criminal intent and other essential ingredients, be
sufficient to attract criminal liability against the present petitioners.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal (supra) , laid down categories of cases where inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to
secure the ends of justice, including cases where the allegations do not prima
facie disclose commission of any offence. The relevant extract thereof is
reproduced hereunder:-
“8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide- ï7 myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(a) 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;
(b) 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 investi- gation 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;
(c) xxxxxx;
(d) 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 order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
SONIA GUGNANI
2026.11.05 14.59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M) -7-

(e) 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;
(f) xxxx;
(g) xxxxx.”
12. Similarly, in Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another , Criminal Appeal No. 4250 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
2682 of 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings
ought not to be permitted to become an instrument of harassment where the
allegations, on examination of the available material, do not disclose the
commission of a criminal offence. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced
hereunder:-
“17. This Court has, in a long line of decisions, deprecated the
tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings. In Indian
Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd.17, 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.
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 nor 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.
SONIA GUGNANI
2026.11.05 14.59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CRM-M-28544-2022(O&M) -8-

(iv) xxxxx
(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 (2006) 6 SCC
738 itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is
whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal
offence or not.
10. xxxxxxxxx.”

13. In view of the overall discussion and keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the allegations against the
petitioners do not disclose their specific and active participation in the alleged
transaction. The agreement to sell was executed by co-accused Mahan Singh
and the complainant has already availed the civil remedy of seeking specific
performance of the said agreement. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
14. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.172 dated
04.09.2021, registered under Sections 420, 379 and 120-B IPC, at Police
Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners only.
15. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(H.S.GREWAL)
03.11.2026 JUDGE
Sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SONIA GUGNANI
2026.11.05 14.59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh