After Land Seller’s Correction Deed Listed ₹85,000 Cheque As Paid, Allahabad HC Upholds Rejection Of His Criminal-Probe Bid

In brief

The question

Whether the alleged non-payment of part of the sale consideration disclosed a cognizable criminal offence warranting action under Section 173(4) BNSS

The court held

The High Court held that the Magistrate had committed no error or illegality in rejecting the application under Section 173(4) BNSS.

It also directed

The revision was dismissed for lack of merit.

01Facts

The revisionist alleged that he sold land to opposite party no. 2 for ₹35,00,000, but that the purchaser failed to pay the full consideration.

¶ 2

He sought police action through an application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

¶ 2

The Magistrate rejected the application, finding that the allegations disclosed no cognizable offence and concerned a civil dispute.

¶ 2–5

In revision, the High Court considered the sale deed, which recorded receipt of the full consideration, and a correction deed, which recorded payment of ₹29,15,000 by RTGS, ₹5,00,000 by cheque, and ₹85,000 by cheque.

¶ 13–14

02Issues

i.Whether the alleged non-payment of part of the sale consideration disclosed a cognizable criminal offence warranting action under Section 173(4) BNSS

¶ 2, 5, 13–16

ii.Whether the Magistrate erred in rejecting the revisionist’s application as relating to a civil dispute

¶ 5, 16

03Law Applied

Section 173(4) BNSS was the procedural basis of the revisionist’s application.

¶ 2

Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property or dominion over property; a sale transaction, in which ownership passes to the purchaser, does not by itself constitute entrustment under Section 405 IPC, as explained in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal and applied in Shikhar Chemicals v. State of U.P.

¶ 6–7

Civil disputes should not be given a criminal colour or used to harass parties, as recognised in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. and reiterated in Shikhar Chemicals.

¶ 5, 7

Where a cheque is presented and returned unpaid, the payee may pursue the remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶ 15

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 173

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 405 Section 406

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

04Reasoning

The Court found that the sale deed recorded the seller’s receipt of the entire consideration, while the correction deed also recorded payment of the outstanding amount, including ₹85,000 by cheque.

¶ 13–14

If the cheque had not been presented, the purchaser could not be blamed for its non-payment; if it had been dishonoured, the revisionist had a remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶ 15

In those circumstances, the allegations did not establish entrustment or otherwise disclose a cognizable offence, and the dispute could not be converted into criminal proceedings merely to recover money.

¶ 7, 16