Allegations disclosing cheating ingredients warrant investigation; disputed intent cannot be determined at the FIR-quashing stage.

The complainant alleged that he entered into a registered agreement to purchase land from petitioner No. 1 on 23 March 2015, made payments said to total ₹3.75 crore, and that a general power of attorney was subsequently executed.

He further alleged that, after the land was converted, petitioner No. 1 gifted portions to family members and executed sale deeds for plots in favour of others, despite the agreement.

The police registered Crime No. 284/2019 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending that the dispute was civil in nature; petitioner No. 1 had died, and the Court recorded that the petition had abated against him.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that investigation remained incomplete.

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC so as to warrant continuation of the investigation.

2. Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

In considering a request to quash an FIR, the Court must examine the complaint’s contents and determine whether they disclose the commission of an offence; where the allegations attract the ingredients of an offence, the Court should not undertake to quash the FIR, and investigation remains within the Investigating Officer’s domain.

The Court relied on Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104.

The alleged offences were under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

The Court considered the allegations that an agreement and general power of attorney had been executed, that payments had been made, and that the land was later gifted to family members and sold in plots to others.

Whether the petitioners acted with an intention to cheat, including whether such intention existed when the agreement was made, required investigation and could not be determined at the FIR-quashing stage.

The Court distinguished the earlier quashing order relied on by the petitioners because that case involved different alleged offences and allegations concerning creation of documents.

It therefore declined to treat the matter as merely civil for purposes of quashing the FIR.

The criminal petition was dismissed; the petition had abated against petitioner No. 1 following his death.