Failure to execute a sale deed after payment constitutes a civil dispute, not criminality.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 19 September 2017 by which the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Samastipur dismissed her protest-cum-complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) in C.R. No. 1930 of 2015.

Initially, Complaint Case No. 1091 of 2014 was filed and was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR. Consequently, Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 235 of 2014 was registered for offences under Sections 323, 341, 354, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

After investigation, the police submitted a final form. The informant thereafter filed a protest petition, which was treated as a protest-cum-complaint. Following examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and examination of witnesses, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., holding that the dispute was essentially civil and related to recovery of money, while the allegations of assault and abuse appeared ornamental. The revisional court upheld the Magistrate’s order.

Whether the Magistrate erred in dismissing the protest-cum-complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. after considering the materials collected during the inquiry.

Whether the allegations concerning receipt of money, failure to execute a sale deed, and refusal to honour the agreement disclosed criminal offences or were essentially civil in nature.

Whether the High Court should interfere with the Magistrate’s order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 203 Cr.P.C., which permits dismissal of a complaint where, after considering the complainant’s examination and the result of the inquiry or investigation, there is insufficient ground for proceeding.

It also considered the nature of proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The Court relied on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, for the principle that a Magistrate’s order taking cognizance or summoning an accused must demonstrate application of mind to the facts and applicable law.

It further relied on Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1153, and Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 812, for the principle that a fundamentally civil dispute cannot be given a criminal colour and that doing so may amount to abuse of the process of law.

Where the primary grievance concerns non-execution of a sale deed after payment of consideration, the appropriate remedy is generally a civil action, including a suit for specific performance.

The Court examined the substance of the allegations and found that the principal grievance was that money had been paid, but the sale deed had not been executed and the opposite parties had not agreed to the terms of the agreement.

Applying the principle that criminal proceedings should not be used to adjudicate essentially contractual or property disputes, the Court held that the allegations primarily disclosed a civil claim for which the petitioner could pursue specific performance before the competent civil court.

The allegations of assault and abuse were treated as ancillary or ornamental and insufficient to alter the essential civil character of the dispute.

Since the Magistrate had considered the complaint materials, the inquiry evidence, and the police final form before dismissing the complaint, and since the revisional court found no infirmity, the High Court found no basis to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

The order dated 19 September 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Samastipur, was held not to warrant interference. Accordingly, the quashing application was dismissed as devoid of merit.