P&H HC Quashes Cheating Charges In Cross-FIRs Over One Plot, Leaves Punjab Apartment Act Proceedings Intact

The petitions arose from competing claims over a plot in land at village Daulatpur, Pathankot. Om Parkash transferred a recorded share of land to his son in June 2023; Rajesh Kumar claimed that the transfer deed overlapped with a plot he had purchased from Rajinder Kaur in June 2021.

Civil suits concerning ownership and possession were pending between the parties. Following separate complaints and enquiries, FIR No. 26 of 2024 was registered against Om Parkash and FIR No. 31 of 2024 against Rajinder Kaur, each alleging cheating under Section 420 IPC and an offence under Section 36(3) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (“the Act”), including sale of plots without approval. Om Parkash’s challan had been presented; further investigation in Rajinder Kaur’s FIR had been stayed. Both petitioners sought quashing of their FIRs and ensuing proceedings

Section 420 IPC, read with the ingredients of cheating under Section 415 IPC, requires deception and inducement causing, or likely to cause, wrongful loss or harm; a third party whose title is disputed is not ordinarily the person cheated where that party neither paid consideration nor was induced to deliver property (*Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar*, (2009) 8 SCC 751; *Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa*, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 230 : 2025 INSC 31)

Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., criminal proceedings may be quashed where, taking the allegations at face value, the ingredients of an offence are not made out; filing of a challan does not remove that power (*State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; *Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)*, (2019) 11 SCC 706)

The Act defines “colony” and “promoter” in Section 2(i) and (y), prescribes penalties under Section 36(1) and (3), and, by Section 38(1), requires previous sanction of the competent authority before prosecution is instituted. Whether the Act was contravened may require determination at trial (*State of Punjab v. Inder Mohan Chopra*, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 400)

As to Section 420 IPC, neither complainant was a purchaser induced by the other petitioner to part with property or consideration. Rajesh Kumar’s grievance against Om Parkash concerned the competing boundaries and validity of deeds, matters already raised in the civil proceedings; the Tehsildar’s finding that the boundaries overlapped did not, by itself, establish dishonest intent.

Likewise, Om Parkash was not a purchaser from Rajinder Kaur, and none of her vendees complained of being cheated. The asserted excess area in her final sale deed resulted from rounding: the conveyed share calculated to 4.69 Marlas, and the five deeds together amounted to 44 Marlas

The Act allegations were different: whether either petitioner was a promoter and whether plots were developed or sold without approval involved disputed facts that could not be determined in these quashing proceedings. The Court therefore declined to quash that part of the cases, while leaving open the applicable penalty provision and requiring the trial court to examine whether the necessary sanction had been obtained before acting on the prosecution report

Proceedings concerning the Act were not quashed; the trial court may consider, at the appropriate stage, the applicable provision, sanction and other available pleas. The stay of further investigation in Rajinder Kaur’s case was vacated, and Om Parkash’s application to stay trial proceedings was disposed of as infructuous.