ROMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS vs UT OF J AND K TH S H O POLICE STATION BAKSHI NAGAR AND ANOTHER

S. No. 27
Regular List

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU



( Through Virtual Mode)

CRM(M) No.724/2024
CrlM No.(1482/2024)






ROMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
….. Petitioner(s)

Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Sr. Advocate with
Through:
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate


V/s


UT OF J&K THROUGH S.H.O POLICE STATION BAKSHI
NAGAR AND ANOTHER

… .. Respondent(s)

Through : Mr. P.D.Singh, Dy.AG for 1.
Mr. Rajat Jamwal, Advocate for 2.



CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

ORDER
09.09.2026


1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition have
challenged FIR No.0120/2024 for offences under section 318(4) and
316(5) BNS registered with Police Station Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
2. As per the allegations made in the impugned FIR, respondent
No.2/Complainant lodged a report with the Police alleging therein that
petitioner Romesh Kumar and his wife petitioner Rekha Devi induced him
to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for purchase of a building at Exchange
Road Jammu with a shop located in the said building. They promised the
complainant that he would be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month out of
the rent that would accrue from the said building and that a tower would be
installed on the floor of the said building. It was further alleged that the

petitioners continued to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the
complainant up to November, 2016, whereafter they stopped to pay the
amount and failed to fulfill the promise which they had made by way of a
written affidavit. Thus, according to the complainant, the petitioners have
committed breach of trust. It has been further alleged in the complaint that
the petitioners are threatening son of the complainant.
3. After the filing of the petition, this Court vide interim order dated
20.09.2024 stayed the investigation of the case.
4. Respondent No.1 Investigating Agency has filed its response in
which besides narrating allegations made in the impugned FIR, it has been
submitted that statements of the witnesses under Section 180 BNSS have
been recorded but because of the stay order passed by this Court further
investigation could not be carried out.
5. Respondent No.2 who is represented by counsel has not filed any
reply. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that
the said respondent does not have any objection if the impugned FIR is
quashed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of
the case.

7. As is clear from the allegations made in the impugned FIR,
transaction between the petitioners No.1 and 2 and the complainant appears
to be purely of civil nature, inasmuch as the petitioners had taken a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- from respondent No.2 and they had agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month to the said respondent on account of rent that was to
be earned by the petitioners from the said building by erecting a tower. It
CRM(M) No. 724/2024 Page 2 of 4

is clearly stated in the impugned FIR that this promise of paying rent
@Rs.20,000/- per month was adhered to by the petitioners until November,
2016, whereafter they are alleged to have stopped paying any rental
income to respondent No.2.
8. The petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence of
cheating as defined in Section 318(1) of BNS. As per the said provision a
person is stated to have committed an offence of cheating if he fraudulently
or dishonestly induces the other person to deliver any property to any
person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do any thing
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person’s body,
mind, reputation or property. Thus, it is only if an accused fraudulently or
dishonestly induces another person to deliver a property that offence of
cheating is made out. It is also a settled law that offence of cheating is
made out if the fraudulent or dishonest intention of the accused is prevalent
at the inception of the transaction. An offence of cheating would not be
made out if at the inception of the transaction the accused did not have
dishonest intention but lateron due to certain circumstances he was not able
to keep his promise.
9. In the present case it has been admitted by the complainant in the
impugned FIR that the petitioners kept their promise of paying Rs.20,000/-
per month as rent uptill November 2016. This means that the petitioners
did not have any dishonest intention at the time of entering into transaction
with respondent No.2. It is only after November, 2016 that they failed to
CRM(M) No. 724/2024 Page 3 of 4

keep their promise. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioners had
any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of entering into transaction
with the petitioner.
10. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, no offence of cheating
is made out against the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the
case and it appears that the present FIR has been lodged by respondent
No. 2 only to give criminal texture to a purely commercial dispute between
the petitioners and the said respondent. The Supreme Court and this Court
has time and again deprecated the tendency of certain litigants to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal prosecution. The present case falls in
the same category.
11. In view of the above, continuance of impugned proceedings
against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and the
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.


(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

SRINAGAR
09.09.2026
Sarveeda Nissar

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
KARAM CHAND
2026.09.10 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM(M) No. 724/2024 Page 4 of 4