Criminal prosecution cannot substitute civil remedies where a contractual dispute lacks dishonest intent or criminal ingredients.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 executed an agreement for sale in 2020 concerning a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lessa in Nagaon, Assam.

The agreement recorded payment of Rs. 1,50,000 as advance, while the petitioner asserted that the balance sale consideration was not paid and possession was therefore not delivered.

The petitioner subsequently returned Rs. 1,25,000, retaining Rs. 25,000 towards expenses, according to his case.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner had received Rs. 5,75,000, failed to complete the sale transaction, and abused and threatened her when she demanded repayment.

On 5 July 2025, she lodged an FIR at Raha Police Station, registered as Raha P.S. Case No. 75/2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 1489/2025, under Sections 319(2), 316(1), 296 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the dispute was contractual and civil in nature and that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay.

Respondent No. 2 maintained that the petitioner had cheated her by accepting the advance and refusing to execute the sale deed.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed criminal offences or were confined to a civil dispute arising from non-performance of an agreement for sale.

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

3. Whether the allegations of abuse and threat attracted Sections 296 and 3(5) of the BNS in the circumstances pleaded.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

It applied the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used as an instrument of harassment, private vendetta, or as a substitute for civil remedies in disputes that are essentially contractual or property-related.

Relying on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259, and Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 732, the Court held that criminal prosecution arising from a civil property dispute may be quashed where it is instituted to exert pressure or harass the accused.

It further relied on Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462, and the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, including the rule that criminal prosecution cannot be employed to enforce money-recovery claims or contractual obligations.

The Court also held that the alleged abuse and threat, absent occurrence in a public place or an attributed obscene act, did not independently establish an offence under Sections 296 and 3(5) of the BNS.

The agreement for sale, which was undisputed, recorded payment of only Rs. 1,50,000, undermining the allegation that Rs. 5,75,000 had been paid.

The parties’ competing versions concerned payment of consideration, obtaining sale permission, execution of the sale deed, delivery of possession, and repayment of the advance—matters arising from contractual performance and therefore appropriately remediable through civil proceedings.

The Court found no specific allegation that the petitioner entered into the agreement with a dishonest intention to cheat from the outset, which was material to distinguishing a mere breach of contract from criminal cheating.

The further financial transactions referred to by Respondent No. 2 were not shown to have any connection with the agreement for sale.

Additionally, the alleged abuse and threat did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Sections 296 and 3(5) of the BNS on the pleaded facts.

In these circumstances, continuation of the FIR was considered an attempt to give a criminal character to a civil dispute and an abuse of process.

It held that the dispute was predominantly civil and contractual, that the FIR did not establish the alleged criminal offences on its face, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Gauhati High Court quashed the FIR dated 5 July 2025 in Raha Police Station Case No. 75/2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 1489/2025.