Existence of commercial or civil dispute does not preclude criminal investigation if allegations prima facie disclose fraudulent intent.

The applicants sought to quash FIR No. 11193003260483 of 2026 registered at Amreli City Police Station

The complainant alleged that in 2021, the applicants executed a notarized agreement to sell (Satakhat) for land in Amreli, receiving ₹20 lakhs in earnest money

It was later discovered that the applicants had allegedly concealed prior encumbrances, including a 2017 agreement with another party (Truptiben) and various revenue record mutations/partnerships involving the property

The applicants argued the dispute was purely civil, concerning specific performance of a contract, and that criminal machinery was being abused for a stale claim

1. Whether the FIR should be quashed on the grounds that the dispute is purely civil/contractual in nature, lacking criminal intent at inception

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023

The court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding inherent powers to quash proceedings

It relied on M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), which cautions against routine interim stays on investigations

State v. M. Maridoss (2023) and Rocky v. State of Telangana (2025), which prohibit "mini-trials" at the quashing stage

Dinesh Sharma v. Emgee Cables (2025), which establishes that a dispute arising from a business relationship does not preclude criminal prosecution if elements of cheating and fraudulent intention are prima facie present

The Court observed that while the dispute stems from a land agreement, the complainant’s allegations suggest dishonest intent at the "very inception"

Specifically, the Court noted that at the time the agreement was signed with the complainant, a prior agreement with Truptiben was still in operation and was only cancelled later

The accused had allegedly manipulated revenue records and formed partnerships to distribute shares of the land without disclosing these facts

The Court reasoned that since the investigation is at a primary stage, it cannot evaluate the truthfulness of these allegations or conduct a detailed evidentiary analysis

Following the precedent in Dinesh Sharma, the Court held that the presence of commercial elements does not automatically shield the applicants from investigation for cheating

The Court dismissed the application and discharged the Rule, holding that the FIR and preliminary materials disclose a prima facie case requiring investigation