Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 192
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1127 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021)
VANDANA JAIN & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
& ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the
1
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 30.07.2021
passed in Misc. Bench No. 16314 of 2021 whereby the writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2026.02.25
17:29:26 IST
Reason:
1
High Court
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 1 of 27
2
petition of the appellants seeking quashing of FIR
No.0112 of 2021, dated 14.03.2021, lodged at Police
Station (for short, P.S.) Hazratganj, District Lucknow,
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 , has been dismissed.
FACTS
3. Vandana Jain (appellant no. 1), Divya Bhatia,
Siddharth Jain (appellant no.2) and Kanishk Jain
(appellant no.3), described as first party, entered into a
4
joint venture agreement dated 16.08.2010 with Motor
General Sales Ltd. (Respondent No.2), described as second
party. As per the terms and conditions of the JVA, the first
party gave development rights to the second party for
developing land i.e., Plot No. 61 (Old No. 276A),
admeasuring 1500 Square Yards, bearing Municipal No.
3A/207 & 208, Azad Nagar, Kanpur. Under the agreement,
the second party was required to construct residential
units/apartments over the land at its own cost. The capital
contribution of the first party was the land which was
2
First Information Report
3
IPC
4
JVA
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 2 of 27
valued at Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lacs Only. The project
was to come up as a single unit in which both first and
second party had 50% share.
4. Under the JVA, the second party undertook to
complete the project within two years, upon fulfillment of
certain conditions such as (i) sanction of plan by Kanpur
5
Development Authority ; and (ii) handing over of vacant
possession of the site to the second party.
5. Clause 5 of the JVA, which is of some relevance, is
being reproduced below:
“ SECURITY FOR DUE COMPLIANCE OF AGREEMENT
For due performance of this Joint Venture Agreement,
the Second Party will advance Rs. 10,000,000 (Rupees
One Crore only) as security money to the First Party on
receiving the physical possession of the vacant property
of which second party will be giving Rs. 50,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Lacs only) lacs in advance and there after
the balance amount to be given to the first party within
3 months. However, if the second party is not in position
to give the balance of the funds from his own sources
within 3 months, then the first party will be entitled to
retain the booking amounts to the extent of Rs.
50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only).
This amount of advance will be adjusted from the share
of the first party from sale proceeds of the said flats in
the complex of the share of the first party.”
6. Clause 7 of the JVA provided for arbitration in the
following terms:
“ ARBITRATION :
5
K.D.A.
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 3 of 27
All disputes or differences relating to breach of contract
or damage or otherwise in connection with the terms of
this contract during or after completion or interpretation
of the terms etc. among the parties or their prospective
purchasers the same shall be referred for the arbitration
under Indian Arbitration Act in force. Neither party will
have any right to approach Civil Court pertaining to
arising out of any matter directly or indirectly of this
agreement of Joint Venture without resorting to this
arbitration clause. The award of arbitrator shall be final,
conclusive and binding upon the parties.”
7. For certain reasons, not necessary to be disclosed
in these proceedings, the JVA could not materialize,
resulting in dispute between the parties. In consequence,
on 14.03.2021, the second respondent lodged the
impugned FIR implicating the appellants along with Divya
Bhati as accused.
The First Information Report
8. In the FIR it was, inter-alia, alleged: (a) that despite
receiving Rs. 1 Crore as security for due compliance of the
JVA, the accused did not hand over possession of the land;
(b) that despite repeated demands for return of the
advance money, the accused did not return the same; (c)
that the accused made a false promise that the land was
free from litigation; (d) that the accused had forged
documents to deceive the complainant; (e) that, later, it
was discovered that in respect of the land concerned, the
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 4 of 27
accused were in litigation with one Indira Devi Kanodia
and the said litigation had been pending since before the
date of the agreement, therefore, by suppressing this fact,
the accused cheated the complainant. On these
allegations, the FIR was registered under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.
Challenge to the FIR
9. Aforesaid FIR was challenged by the appellants
before the High Court through W.P. No. 16314 (M/B) of
2021. It was, inter-alia, pleaded: (a) that plot No.61 was
bought by Nand Lal Gupta (predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants) from Suraj Bux Singh (i.e. the original owner
of the land) in 1967 whereafter part of the land was
transferred to Urmila Agrawal and Vasudha Agrawal,
daughters in law of Nand Lal Gupta; (b) in the year 1972,
Nand Lal Gupta constructed a boundary wall on the said
land, which was illegally demolished by Kanpur Nagar
Mahapalika; (c) as a result, Nand Lal Gupta instituted Suit
No. 245 of 1972 claiming damages from Kanpur Nagar
Mahapalika; (d) those proceedings were contested by
Mahapalika by claiming that the land had been acquired
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 5 of 27
in the year 1945-46; (e) however, on 28.04.1979, the
aforesaid suit was decreed holding that plaintiff is the
owner in possession of the land in dispute forming part of
plot No. 61, New Jeora Nawabganj and defendant(s) have
no right, title or interest in the land; (f) a Civil Appeal No.
371 of 1979 was filed by Nagar Mahapalika and K.D.A.
before the District Judge, Kanpur, which was dismissed
on 25.04.1981 thereby confirming the finding(s) returned
by the trial court; (g) said decree has attained finality; (h)
on 29.06.1987, House No. 3A-207, located over Plot No.
276A (old), having new No. 61 at Jeora Nawabganj,
Kanpur, was bought by Sushila Devi Jain vide sale-deed
dated 29.06.1987 from Smt. Urmila Agarwal; (i) likewise,
J.C. Jain (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants)
bought a portion of old plot No.276A (new No.61) vide sale-
deed dated 29.06.1987 from Smt. Vasudha Agarwal; (j) on
death of Sushila Devi Jain and J.C. Jain, the appellants
became owner of the property; (k) on 16.03.2000, Indira
Devi Kanodia, who owned a plot adjoining the land in
question, requested K.D.A. to deliver the possession of the
plot allotted to her sometime in the year 1957; (l) pursuant
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 6 of 27
thereto, K.D.A., despite the decree in Suit No. 245 of 1972
holding that no such plot of land was acquired by K.D.A.,
projected that the plot in question was actually plot no. 46
even though the two plots (i.e., plot nos.46 and 61) were
far apart; (m) when the aforesaid fact came to the
knowledge of the appellants, they represented the matter
to K.D.A.; (n) in response, on 21.11.2001, Indira Devi
Kanodia instituted Suit No. 1432 of 2001 for protecting her
possession; (o) in the said suit, the appellants filed an
Application for impleadment, which was allowed on
07.08.2002; (p) aggrieved therewith, Indira Devi Kanodia
filed a revision which was dismissed on 02.12.2005; (q)
against that order, a writ petition was filed which too was
dismissed by order dated 20.08.2008; (r) thereafter, on
23.04.209, Indira Devi Kanodia moved an application
seeking amendment in the plaint to include plot No. 61,
which was dismissed by the trial order vide dated
09.11.2009, against which no further proceedings were
drawn.
10. On strength of the aforesaid facts, the appellants
sought to develop a case that their title over the land
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 7 of 27
bearing plot no. 61 (new), Jeora Nawabganj was not
disputed; dispute, if any, was settled in an earlier suit
instituted by their predecessor-in-interest; party disputing
appellant’s interest, namely, Indira Devi Kanodia, claimed
allotment through K.D.A. and initially in her suit, she had
alleged that the plot allotted to her was not part of plot No.
61. In these circumstances, the appellants claimed that
they have not made any false representation about their
title over the land in question. The appellants also stated
that there was an arbitration clause in the JVA therefore,
on a dispute arising from the JVA, recourse should be had
to the arbitration clause. Hence, FIR was nothing but
abuse of the process of law.
High Court’s Order
11. High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine,
vide impugned order, without considering whether the
facts spelt out in the FIR disclosed a pure civil cause of
action as also whether the allegations made, make out an
offence qua preparation of a false document.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the record.
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 8 of 27
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
13. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted:
(i) By merely making bald allegations that
appellants had made false
representation to dupe the complainant
into entering a development agreement,
a dispute civil in nature has been given
color of a criminal case.
(ii) It is a pure civil dispute because there is
no misrepresentation which is evident
from the fact that there is no specific
statement in the JVA that no litigation
qua the land is pending in any court.
(iii) The allegation that appellants prepared
a false document of no encumbrance on
the property is not substantiated by any
allegation in the FIR; and
(iv) The JVA is of the year 2010 whereas the
FIR has been lodged in the year 2021,
after 11 years, when even a civil suit had
become barred by limitation. Therefore,
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 9 of 27
allowing such FIR to exist would be
nothing but abuse of the process of law.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
AND THE STATE
14. On behalf of the complainant and the State, it has
been submitted:
(i) At the stage of considering prayer to
quash an FIR only the allegations
therein are to be considered and
therefore, various averments made in
the writ petition, in the form of defense,
are not to be considered; and
(ii) As the FIR discloses commission of an
offence, the matter requires
investigation therefore, the High Court
was justified in dismissing the petition
in limine .
DISCUSSION
15. At the outset, we may observe that while
considering a prayer to quash an FIR, ordinarily the
allegations made therein are to be taken at their face value
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 10 of 27
to assess whether commission of a cognizable
prima facie
offence is made out or not. However, where the cause
espoused in the FIR is essentially of a civil nature, while
addressing a quashing petition, the Court must have
regard to the attending circumstances and assess whether
6
it has been given cloak of criminal offence and whether
proceeding further on the FIR would amount to the abuse
of the process of the court/ law. In making such
assessment, the Court may consider not only the contents
of the FIR but also the admitted facts / documents recited
therein.
16. In the case on hand, a perusal of the FIR would
indicate that existence of JVA is admitted. The thrust of
the allegations is on: (a) false representation by the
appellants about their title to the property/land including
suppression of litigation pending in respect thereof; (b)
non-fulfilment of contractual obligations; (c) non-refund of
security money; (d) furnishing false document. We shall
deal with each of the above allegations.
The Joint Venture Agreement
6
See Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 SCC 673, para 12
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 11 of 27
17. There is no dispute between the parties that they
th
had executed a JVA dated 16 August 2010. The dispute
between the parties have arisen from the said JVA. In such
circumstances, as it is part of the record, it would be useful
to refer to its relevant clauses. The said agreement
introduces the property in question in the following
manner:
“ BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY
WHEREAS previously the owner of the property was Sri
Nand Lal Gupta, Father in Law of Smt. Urmila Agarwal
w/o Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal r/o 46/39 Khoya Bazar,
Kanpur, Shri Nand Lal executed a Patta and got it
registered in the Tehsil Kanpur. Wherefrom Smt. Urmila
Agarwal becomes the real owner of plot bearing (Old No.
276-A) New No. 61, Jeora Nawabganj, Kanpur
admeasuring 10 biswas (1195 Sq. Yds.) more specifically
delineated in the enclosed site plan shown by colour
green and her name stands mutated in the revenue
record as the owner/ bhumidhar of the said plot. The
plot is situated in the metropolitan area of Kanpur
Nagar.
WHEREAS Sri Nand Lal is the Father-in-Law of Smt.
Vasudha Agarwal w/o Shri Vinod Agarwal r/o 46/39
Khoya Bazar, Kanpur. Shri Nand Lal executed a Patta
and got it registered in the Tehsil Kanpur. By which
Smt. Vasudha Agarwal becomes the real owner of plot
bearing (Old No. 276-A) New No. 61, Jeora Nawabganj,
Kanpur admeasuring 305 Sq. Yds. more specifically
delineated in the enclosed site plan shown by colour red
in plan annexed and her name stands mutated in the
revenue record as the owner of the said plot. The plot is
situated in the metropolitan area of Kanpur Nagar.
Both Smt. Urmila Agarwal and Smt. Vasudha Agarwal
have raised construction and a house was made and
assessed to the Municipal Tax, H. No. 3A/207 & 208,
Azad Nagar was allotted to the house property.
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 12 of 27
WHEREAS Smt. Urmila Agarwal has sold her portion of
land (1195 Sq. Yds.) together with construction thereon
to Smt. Sushila Devi Jain w/o J.C. Jain r/o Munney Lal
Kagzi Kothi Yahiagang, Lucknow, vide Sale Deed
registered with Sub Registrar Kanpur at Bahi No. 1 Zild
No. 4443, Page No. 250 to 254 at original Sl. No. 13483
th
on 7 March 1988. Similarly, Smt. Vasudha Agarwal
has sold her portion of Land (305 Sq. Yds.) together with
construction thereon to Shri J.C. Jain, Karta of J.C.
Jain (HUF) r/o Munney Lal Kagzi Kothi Yahiagang,
Lucknow, vide Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar
Kanpur at Bahi No. 1 Zild No. 4478, Page No. 66 to 72
th
at original Sl No. 13481 on 7 March 1988. Both late
Shri J.C. Jain and Smt. Sushila Devi Jain have willed
the land to their grandchildren Smt. Divya Jain, Shri
Siddharth Jain and Shri Kanishk Jain who are now the
joint owners of the said property.
WHEREAS in a family settlement Smt. Divya Jain, Shri
Siddharth Jain and Shri Kanishk Jain have all gifted
1/3rd each of their share to their mother Smt. Vandana
th
Jain who is now the owner of 1/4 of the said plot.
AND WHEREAS
1. In the present global scenario and in order to
contribute in the planned development of the Kanpur
City, the First Party has decided to develop by erecting
residential units/apartments over the land of premises
built over the Plot No. 61 (Old No. 276-A), Jeora
Nawabganj, Kanpur.
2. The Second Party who is in Automobile line and
having financing arrangements and being interested in
entering into construction Business expresses its
interest to develop the said property jointly with the
First Party.
3. The First Party between themselves have
decided to develop the property jointly with the Second
Party by erecting residential units or apartments over
aforesaid premises subject to terms and conditions
settled mutually, as enumerated herein below.”
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 13 of 27
18. The relevant provisions in the JVA, governing
rights and obligations of the parties, are found in clauses
1 to 7, which are reproduced below:
“ NOW IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AS FOLLOWS
1. This contract for joint venture agreement will be
effective from 16.08.2010
2. Contractual obligations and right of the second
party
2.1 That the Second Party will construct the
residential units or apartments, as per intended objects,
in conformity with the plans, drawing, specifications
and elevations, duly approved by the Kanpur
Development Authority, by its own funds, after
demolition of the existing structure and that the First
Party will be assisting the Second Party in getting works
smoothen up as the Second Party has less experience in
present.
2.2 That in pursuance of said contract and
consideration to erect the units or residential
apartments, over the subject land, out of its own funds
and resources, and in lieu thereof the Second Party will
have 50% undivided share of the land and construction
(units or apartments) thereon, open and covered car
parking space, terrace and undivided share in the
common area and facilities, etc. of project.
2.3 That the Second Party will be fully empowered to
advertise, display signboards, publish the project in any
manner whatsoever at its cost, and to book, sell the
flats, parking etc. The Second Party will be authorised
to collect advance Booking amounts as may be decided
by both the parties and will use the same towards
construction of the said Building along with its funds.
2.4 That in pursuance of this Joint Venture, the
Second Party will be fully empowered and authorised to
execute sale deed/deeds or any other documents in
respect of units or flats consisting of super built up area,
common area facilities, open and covered parking space,
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 14 of 27
terrace of the building etc. and in such sale deeds the
first party will also join for the sale of undivided share
of land underneath, in favour of the prospective
purchasers and to get them registered, in the office of
Sub-Registrar, Kanpur or to deal with its share in
construction as absolute owner, without any further
consent of the First Party.
3. PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT :
3.1 That the Second Party undertakes to complete
the construction of the project within 2 years, after
fulfilment of following statutory permission:
a) Sanction of plan by Kanpur Development
Authority. (After obtaining all the requisite permission
from concerned authorities.) The said assignment is
agreed to be taken up by the first party and to be given
to the second party
b) With the mutual consent of the parties said
period for completion of project will be further extended.
3.2 The peaceful and vacant possession of the
premises will be handed over to the Second Party on
16.08.2010 for achieving intended objects, contained
therein.
3.3 Any delay, in carrying out the construction, due
to force majeure causes/beyond the control of Second
Party, the affected period shall not be taken into
account, while calculating the period of completion of
project, and the affected period shall be considered as
idle period.
3.4 In case of any dispute with regard to the title of
the First Party or due to other impediment caused by
the First Party, etc. the Second Party is unable to carry
out the construction of the project, the affected period
in the dispute will not be considered, while calculating
the period of completion of the project. Apart from it, the
Second Party will have lien and right to retain and utilize
the constructed portions in the subject land, together
with land underneath therein, to the extent of the
amount and other incidental expenses incurred by him
in the said project.
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 15 of 27
4. THE CONTRACTED OBLIGATIONS AND
RIGHTS OF FIRST PARTY :
4.1 To assist the Second Party for obtaining the
Sanction of map and other approvals from Kanpur
Development Authority, Fire N.O.C., earthquake
resistance, and other permissions from statutory
bodies, at the cost of Second Party. However the First
Party will have to pay all dues, in respect of subject land,
up to the date of handing over the possession of the
same to the Second Party. If in case any kind of dues,
taxes etc. are discovered unpaid in future, it will be
perpetual and exclusive liability of the First Party to pay
it on demand to the Second Party or to statutory bodies,
as the case may be.
4.2 That the First Party assure and covenant to the
Second Party that the said premises, is not attached in
Banks or Government Department for the Income Tax
demand or sales tax dues etc. nor it will be attached for
any financial liability in future. However, in future if any
financial liability demand, Taxes etc. of First Party arises
it will be realized from the portion of the land and
building of First Party’s share only and will not be
recoverable from the share of the Second Party.
4.3 That the First Party indemnify the Second Party
in all respect with regard to perfect and good marketable
title over the subject land and assure that the First Party
has not been restrained by any court order or income
tax or other government department or otherwise to
enter into this Joint Venture Agreement.
4.4 (a) That since the First Party has purchased the
premises vide two separate sale deeds apportioning the
plot no.61 (Old No.276-A) of Jeora Nawabganj, Kanpur,
therefore if KDA/corporation or other government
department demands any sub-division charges, penalty,
fee etc. the same shall be paid by the First Party only.
(b) That it is also decided that the extra
construction over and above the permissible FAR may
be raised after purchasing the permissible FAR from
Kanpur Development Authority, however, the
purchasing cost of the FAR will be borne and beared by
the parties in their proportionate ratio.
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 16 of 27
4.5 The First Party will also be fully empowered to
advertise, display signboards, publish the project in any
manner whatsoever at its cost, and to book, sell the
units or flats, parking etc. of its share and to receive the
earnest money, sale consideration from the prospective
purchasers in respect of units or super built up area of
flats, common area and facilities, terrace open and
covered, parking etc. together with undivided share in
the land and give them valid receipts. And execute the
deed of conveyance together with Second Party in favour
of intending purchasers. However, the First Party will be
paying off the advance so received in proportion to the
Advance already given by the Second Party to the First
Party.
4.6 That First Party will assist the party No.2 in all
construction works as well as in negotiating sales of the
flats and all other aspects where assistance required as
it being the first project of the second party.
5. SECURITY FOR DUE COMPLIANCE OF
AGREEMENT
(Already extracted in paragraph 5 of this judgment)
6. GENERAL
6.1 By virtue of this Joint Venture Agreement, the
Second Party is empowered and authorised to submit
any application, letter, bond etc. pertaining to approval,
sanction and other activities, with regard to the
development, at site and completion of the project. The
First Party will be cooperating fully to Second Party for
these purposes.
6.2 The Second Party shall indemnify to the First
Party in respect, of all claims, damages or expenses
payable in consequence to any injury to any employee
or workmen, while in or upon the said premises and
claims of the prospective purchasers up to handing over
of the possession of units or flats.
6.3 All Taxes, dues in respect of subject land upto
the date of this agreement as per this Joint Venture
Agreement will be borne by the first party, similarly, all
taxes, charges for consumption of water and electricity
used, during construction of building and thereafter till
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 17 of 27
handing over possession of the share of the first party,
will be paid by the second party.
6.4 That the penalty, compounding fee, if any,
occurs in the project due to deviations from the sanction
plan shall be shared proportionately by first and second
party.
6.5 That during the course of construction or
thereafter, the first party and the second party will not
create any encumbrances or charges over the subject
land in the manner of what so ever nature, which may
be prejudicial to the interest of the both or its
prospective purchases.
6.6 That the name of the proposed residential
apartment will be___________ which name cannot be
changed by any parties of this agreement, their
prospective purchases or subsequently formed
associations of the unit/flat owners.
6.7 This agreement shall not be deemed to
constitute a partnership, between the parties, as such,
all taxes liability, including income tax, sales tax, capital
gain taxes, will be the individual and the independent
liability of the parties concerned.
6.8 After execution of this Joint Venture Deed of
contract, the parties may with mutual consent, in
writing alter, change, or modify any of the conditions,
enumerated here and above. In such case, without
affecting the entire contract, up to the extent of
modifications the contract will be deemed to be novated
and parties will be bound to adhere the same.
6.9 That after development of the subject land, in
pursuance of this Contract of Joint Venture, the Second
Party will become the absolute owner of the units or
flats, open and covered car parking spaces, roof etc. and
will acquire the status of co-owner in the common area,
facilities, and proportionate undivided share, in the
subject land upto the extent of its share. Hence by virtue
of the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Indian
Registration Act, the Second Party will have absolute
and unrestricted right, to execute agreement to sell/sale
deed etc. for construction raised by it and to receive
entire agreed sale consideration in tis name, give them
valid receipt and get the sale deeds registered in respect
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 18 of 27
of its share together with First Party for undivided share
in the land notwithstanding the execution and
registration of any Power of Attorney.
6.10 That during construction of building or
thereafter if First Party creates any type of hindrances,
obstructions or unwanted intervention by which the
construction activities or sales of flats is
stopped/hampered. Or First Party commits any breach
of this agreement, the First Party will pay 12% interest
to the Second Party on/over the entire expenses
incurred by the Second Party in the project upto
restoration of normalcy. The said amount may be
realized by the Second Party from the immoveable and
movable assets of the First Party.
6.11 That irrespective of the covenant contained in
clause 6.9 above for due performance of this contract
the First Party No. A (i), (ii), (iii) have executed a General
Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Kanishk Jain,
authorising him to sell dispose of the units or flats etc.
falling in the share of the Second Party, consisting of
units/flats, open and covered car parking, roof, common
area facilities together with undivided share in the land
underneath.
6.12 The First party assure to the second party and
undertakes that under no circumstances said General
Power of Attorney will be revoked by the First Party No.
A (i) till execution of all the sale deeds in favour of
prospective purchasers of the Second Party’s share.
6.13 That this deed of contract is being executed in
duplicate and both will be treated as original.
6.14 That this Joint Venture Agreement will remain
enforce, until the subjected land is fully developed, and
sold upto the intent of the parties.
7. ARBITRATION :
(Already extracted in paragraph 6 of this judgment) .”
19. A careful reading of the aforesaid clauses would
reflect that the first party, which means the appellants
herein, had assured -- (a) that the premises is not attached
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 19 of 27
in Banks or Government Department for Income Tax
demand, Sales Tax dues etc. nor it will be attached for any
financial liability in future; (b) that if any financial liability
demand, taxes, etc. of first party arises it will be realized
from the portion of the land and building of first party’s
share only and will not be recoverable from the share of
the second party; and (c) that the first party would
indemnify the second party in all respect with regard to
perfect and good marketable title over the subject land and
assure that the first party has not been restrained by any
court order or income tax or other government department
or otherwise to enter into this JVA.
20. It is clear from the afore-extracted clauses that
there is no specific statement by the first party as regards
no litigation pending. The representation of the first party
is about there being no restraint order of any court or
income tax or other government department on dealing
with the land. What is clear from the agreement is that
the appellants had assured the complainant party (a) that
there was no attachment or demand against the property;
(b) that there is no restraint order operating on them to
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 20 of 27
deal with the property; and (c) that they will indemnify the
second party in all respect with regard to perfect, good and
marketable title over the subject land. Therefore, the
allegation that the accused had falsely represented about
there being no litigation qua the land/ property is
unfounded.
21. Clause 5 provides for giving of security by the
second party for due compliance of the agreement. What is
important is that clause 5 does not envisage refund of the
security money. Rather, it speaks of adjustment of the
security deposit from the share of the first party derived
from sale proceeds of the proposed flats in the complex.
Interestingly, the expression “respective share of the
parties” is defined in the definition clause of the agreement
as follows:
“That the entire project will be a single unit however for
safe consideration in case of any disputes the ratio of
both parties in constructed portion of the project shall
be 50% each. Immediately after sanction of the map and
before commencement of construction work, both the
parties shall decide their respective portions in the map.
The share shall be: 50% to First Party
50% to Second Party”
22. Therefore, the deposit of security money is non-
refundable. The object of it was to ensure fulfilment of
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 21 of 27
contractual obligations. In lieu of refund, the security
amount had to be adjusted from the share of the first party
derived from sale proceeds. In such circumstances, the
allegation about security money being not refunded would
not make out a criminal offence though it may give rise to
a civil cause of action.
23. During arguments, we had put a specific question
to the learned counsel for the respondent as to which
document is alleged to have been forged by the accused to
disclose their title. In response thereto, the learned
counsel for the complainant placed before us a letter
written by Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, Kanpur, U.P. which
disclosed that plot no. 61 (Old Plot No. 276A) area 1500
Sq. Yds. bearing Municipal No. 3A/207 and 208, Azad
Nagar, Kanpur is the ancestral property of Shri Siddharth
Jain and others regarding which there is no dispute.
According to the complainant, this letter is not traceable
in the office from which it is purported to have been issued
therefore, it is a false document.
24. In our view, merely because a document is not
traceable in the records after several years of its issuance,
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 22 of 27
it cannot be said that the document is forged. It is a matter
of common knowledge that certificate/letters, such as the
one in question, are not maintained in perpetuity.
Therefore, if, after 10 or 11 years, merely because the office
reports that such letter/ certificate is not traceable in the
records of the office, it cannot be said that it is forged. A
document would be considered forged document only
when the allegations are to the effect that it is a false
7
document within the meaning of section 464 of the I.P.C.
7
464. Making a false document. —
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record—Firstly, — Who dishonestly or fraudulently—
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention
of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made,
signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he
knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly, — Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document
or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature
either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly, — Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic
record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of
mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the
document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Illustrations
(a)A has a letter of credit upon B for rupees 10,000 written by Z. A, in order to defraud B, adds a cipher to the 10,000,
and makes the sum 1,00,000 intending that it may be believed by B that Z so wrote the letter. A has committed forgery.
(b)A, without Z 's authority, affixes Z 's seal to a document purporting to be a conveyance of an estate from Z to A, with
the intention of selling the estate to B, and thereby of obtaining from B the purchase-money. A has committed forgery.
(c)A picks up a cheque on a banker signed by B, payable to bearer, but without any sum having been inserted in the
cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of ten thousand rupees. A commits forgery.
(d) A leaves with B, his agent, a cheque on a banker, signed by A, without inserting the sum payable and authorizes B to
fill up the cheque by inserting a sum not exceeding ten thousand rupees for the purpose of making certain payment. B
fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of twenty thousand rupees. B commits forgery.
(e) A draws a bill of exchange on himself in the name of B without B 's authority, intending to discount it as a genuine
bill with a banker and intending to take up the bill on its maturity. Here, as A draws the bill with intent to deceive the
banker by leading him to suppose that he had the security of B, and thereby to discount the bill, A is guilty of forgery.
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 23 of 27
There appears no allegations that title documents
submitted by the accused were forged. In such
circumstances, the allegation that false document has
been submitted is baseless.
(f) Z 's will contains these words— “I direct that all my remaining property be equally divided between A, B and C .” A
dishonestly scratches out B 's name, intending that it may be believed that the whole was left to himself and C. A has
committed forgery.
(g) A endorses a Government promissory note and makes it payable to Z or his order by writing on the bill the words
“Pay to Z or his order” and signing the endorsement. B dishonestly erases the words “Pay to Z or his order”, and thereby
converts the special endorsement into a blank endorsement. B commits forgery.
(h) A sells and conveys an estate to Z. A afterwards, in order to defraud Z of his estate, executes a conveyance of the
same estate to B, dated six months earlier than the date of the conveyance to Z, intending it to be believed that he had
conveyed the estate to B before he conveyed it to Z. A has committed forgery.
(i) Z dictates his will to A. A intentionally writes down a different legatee from the legatee named by Z, and by
representing to Z that he has prepared the will according to his instructions, induces Z to sign the will. A has committed
forgery.
(j) A writes a letter and signs it with B 's name without B 's authority, certifying that A is a man of good character and in
distressed circumstances from unforeseen misfortune, intending by means of such letter to obtain alms from Z and other
persons. Here, as A made a false document in order to induce Z to part with property. A has committed forgery.
(k) A without B 's authority writes a letter and signs it in B 's name certifying to A 's character, intending thereby to obtain
employment under Z. A has committed forgery in as much as he intended to deceive Z by the forged certificate, and
thereby to induce Z to enter into an express or implied contract for service.
Explanation 1. — A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Illustrations:
(a)A signs his own name to a bill of exchange, intending that it may be believed that the bill was drawn by another person
of the same name. A has committed forgery.
(b)A writes the word “accepted” on a piece of paper and signs it with Z 's name, in order that B may afterwards write on
the paper a bill of exchange drawn by B upon Z, and negotiate the bill as though it had been accepted by Z. A is guilty of
forgery; and if B, knowing the fact, draws the bill upon the paper pursuant to A 's intention, B is also guilty of forgery.
(c)A picks up a bill of exchange payable to the order of a different person of the same name. A endorses the bill in his
own name, intending to cause it to be believed that it was endorsed by the person whose order it was payable; here A has
committed forgery.
(d)A purchases an estate sold under execution of a decree against B. B, after the seizure of the estate, in collusion with Z,
executes a lease of the estate of Z at a nominal rent and for a long period and dates the lease six months prior to the
seizure, with intent to defraud A, and to cause it to be believed that the lease was granted before the seizure. B, though he
executes the lease in his own name, commits forgery by antedating it.
(e)A, a trader, in anticipation of insolvency, lodges effects with B for A 's benefit, and with intent to defraud his creditors;
and in order to give a colour to the transaction, writes a promissory note binding himself to pay to B a sum for value
received, and antedates the note, intending that it may be believed to have been made before. A was on the point of
insolvency. A has committed forgery under the first head of the definition.
Explanation 2. — The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the
document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document
was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
Illustration
A draws a bill of exchange upon a fictitious person, and fraudulently accepts the bill in the name of such fictitious person
with intent to negotiate it. A commits forgery.
Explanation 3.— For the purposes of this section, the expression “affixing electronic signature” shall have the meaning
assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 24 of 27
25. Insofar as the allegation regarding non-fulfillment
of contractual obligations is concerned, recourse to
appropriate civil remedy was required. Moreover, this is
not a case where something emerged quickly after the
agreement to indicate that dishonest intention existed
th
from the beginning. The JVA is dated 16 August 2010
whereas the FIR was lodged in 2021. If there was
something stark about the dishonest intention on part of
one of the parties to the agreement, it would have been
reported promptly and not after 10 years. This clearly
indicates that the dispute between the parties was purely
of a civil nature.
26. No offence of cheating is made out because, as
discussed above, there is no false representation in the
JVA. As far as the allegation of false representation about
the title is concerned, there is nothing to indicate that what
the appellants had stated in the JVA was false. Further,
there is no allegation that history of title of the
property/land narrated in the JVA contains any false
statement. Moreover, the JVA nowhere states that there is
no litigation or dispute pending, rather it speaks of
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 25 of 27
indemnifying the complainant party in case of any loss on
account of any dispute. The statement in the JVA that
there was no restraint order of any court or Government
department in respect of dealing with the land is not
alleged or shown to be false or incorrect.
27. As far as non-fulfillment of contractual obligations
are concerned, recourse can be had to civil remedies. On
facts, recourse to criminal proceedings, in our view, is
nothing but abuse of the process of law/ court. More so,
when there is nothing to show that the accused had
harbored a dishonest intention from inception.
28. There is no criminal breach of trust because the
security amount was not refundable, rather it was
adjustable against the share of the first party derived from
sale proceeds. Thus, in the event of breach of any of the
conditions of the agreement, the appropriate course was to
take recourse to civil remedies.
29. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered
view that dispute between the parties is essentially of a
civil nature arising from the JVA. Further, a complete
reading of the FIR along with admitted documents, does
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 26 of 27
not disclose commission of offence of either cheating or
criminal breach of trust much less creation or using of a
false document.
30. We are therefore of the considered view that the
impugned first information report only discloses a civil
cause of action. The High Court, unfortunately, did not
take pains to carefully read the FIR and consider the
admitted documents including the JVA to find out
whether, prima facie, cognizable offence was made out or
not. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and
order of the High Court is set aside. The impugned FIR and
all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
31. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…............................................. J.
(Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha)
................................................ J.
(Manoj Misra)
New Delhi;
February 25, 2026
SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021 Page 27 of 27