After Buyer Paid ₹20.41 Lakh For Bungalow Later Sold To Another, Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Against Representative, Citing No Overt Act

The complainant alleged that he agreed to purchase a bungalow in the “Sun Villa Bungalows” scheme and paid amounts towards the purchase through the principal accused and their representatives, including the applicant.

The principal accused later acknowledged receipt of ₹20,41,000 by written undertaking but did not execute the sale deed; the complainant subsequently discovered that the bungalow had been conveyed to a third party.

The applicant sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the dispute was civil in nature and that no criminal role was attributed to him.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, illustrative grounds for intervention include cases where allegations, accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence.

In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709, the Supreme Court held that, at the initial stage, the court considers whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence and may quash proceedings where continuation would serve no useful purpose, including where the dispute is predominantly civil and criminal ingredients are absent.

The alleged offences were under Sections 406, 468, 420 and 114 IPC.

Applying the Bhajan Lal framework, the Court found that the FIR attributed the sale transaction and the written acknowledgment of payment to the principal accused.

It treated the applicant’s role as that of a representative through whom payments were made and found no direct role or overt act by him establishing the alleged offences.

In the Court’s view, the allegations against the applicant did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the charged offences, and the dispute, as regards him, was essentially civil in character.

The Court therefore considered continuation of the prosecution against him futile.

The Rule was made absolute; the Court clarified that its observations would not affect any pending litigation concerning the subject matter.