A civil sale dispute without prima facie criminality cannot sustain an FIR.

Respondent No. 2 complained that, in a transaction for the sale of 33 guntas of land for an agreed consideration of ₹64 lakh, a sale deed was registered instead of the intended agreement to sell, and that he had been defrauded.

The police registered Crime No. 73/2022 against the petitioner under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 468 and 149 of the IPC.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the CrPC.

He relied on bank records showing three pay orders totalling ₹63,11,250, including one payable to an earlier agreement holder, and contended that the dispute was civil in nature.

The complainant disputed that the payment to the earlier agreement holder was authorised or formed part of the sale consideration.

1. Whether the complaint and material on record disclosed criminality warranting continuation of the FIR against the petitioner, or instead raised a civil dispute concerning the sale transaction and payment of consideration

2. Whether the FIR in Crime No. 73/2022 should be quashed in the exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the CrPC

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the CrPC, under which the High Court may consider whether criminal proceedings should continue.

The Court applied the settled principle that a civil dispute cannot be given a criminal colour in the absence of criminality disclosed on the material before it.

The judgment cites no specific precedent or sets out a separate statutory test for quashing.

The Court noted that the sale consideration was agreed at ₹64 lakh and that the bank records showed pay orders issued to respondent No. 2 and to Munigowda, whom the petitioner said was an earlier agreement holder and had been paid on respondent No. 2’s instructions.

The Court considered that any dispute over whether the payment to Munigowda discharged part of the consideration could be pursued through a civil suit, and that a claim that a sale deed was registered instead of an agreement to sell could likewise be addressed through civil proceedings.

On the material before it, the Court found no criminality warranting continuation of the proceedings and concluded that the civil dispute had been given a criminal colour.

It clarified that its observations would not affect the parties’ civil rights.