Facts
The applicants floated a real estate scheme and executed a Banakhat (Agreement to Sell) with the complainant in 2016 for three plots, receiving Rs. 15,65,000/- in installments
Source reference: p. 2When the complainant sought execution of the sale deed in 2021, the applicants provided evasive replies regarding a potential six-lane road project
Source reference: p. 2Following the death of the complainant's wife in 2022, it was discovered that the applicants did not own the land upon which the scheme was floated
Source reference: p. 2Investigations revealed that approximately 14 other investors had been similarly defrauded
Source reference: p. 3, 6-9The applicants moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash the FIR (registered under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the IPC) citing inordinate delay and the civil nature of the dispute
Source reference: p. 1-3Issues
1. Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a mere civil dispute regarding non-execution of a sale deed or prima facie disclose cognizable criminal offences
Source reference: p. 62. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR when the investigation is at a crucial stage and the accused are not cooperating
Source reference: p. 5, 10Law Applied
The Court considered Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process
Source reference: p. 1, 10It applied the principle that while purely civil disputes should not be criminalized, acts involving the collection of money for land not owned by the accused prima facie constitute criminal BFS/IPC offences
Source reference: p. 6The Court also referenced Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2026) regarding the ambit of the offence of forgery
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Court rejected the applicants' contention that the matter was purely civil. It reasoned that because the applicants collected substantial sums from the complainant and 14 other victims under the guise of selling plots they did not own, the matter transcended a simple breach of contract and entered the realm of criminal fraud and breach of trust
Source reference: p. 6Regarding the delay in filing the FIR, the Court found the gravity of the allegations and the discovery of multiple victims outweighed the procedural lapse
Source reference: p. 6The Court further noted that the applicants had absconded, closed their bank accounts, and failed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, making it inappropriate to stifle a legitimate prosecution at a "crucial stage"
Source reference: p. 5, 10Holding
The Court held that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences and that judicial interference is not warranted when the investigation is incomplete and the accused are untraceable
The Court answered that the dispute cannot be treated as merely civil in nature given the lack of title and multiple victims
Source reference: p. 6Consequently, the application for quashing the FIR was dismissed
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
BANSIBHAI VALLABHBHAI LUNGARIYAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in