Sale deed and payment records render a sale-consideration dispute civil, not criminal.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners had cheated him of ₹1.70 crore in connection with a property transaction.

A sale deed had been executed for the property, recording consideration of ₹1.20 crore.

Petitioner No. 2 relied on bank statements, cheques and receipts to contend that this amount had been paid to the complainant.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR registered as Crime No. 262/2018 for offences under Sections 504, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

They also asserted that an earlier complaint had been treated as civil in nature, although the court noted that no document establishing the earlier NCR or endorsement was produced.

Petitioner No. 1 died during the proceedings, and the petition abated against him; the petition was considered for petitioner No. 2, arraigned as accused No. 4.

1. Whether the FIR and ensuing proceedings for offences under Sections 504, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC should be quashed, as against petitioner No. 2, in view of the sale deed and material showing payment of the recorded sale consideration.

2. Whether the complainant’s grievance concerning unpaid or disputed sale consideration was a civil dispute that could not, on the material before the court, sustain criminal prosecution against petitioner No. 2.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the FIR and further investigation.

The court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where, on the material before it, their continuation would amount to an abuse of process; it also distinguished a dispute concerning payment of sale consideration, for which the aggrieved party may pursue an appropriate civil remedy, from a basis for criminal prosecution.

The court referred to Sections 504, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC as the offences alleged, but cited no precedent or separately stated statutory test in its reasoning.

The court considered that the sale deed recorded consideration of ₹1.20 crore and that petitioner No. 2 had produced bank statements, cheques and receipts indicating payment of that amount to the complainant.

Although the complaint alleged cheating of ₹1.70 crore, the court concluded that the materials before it showed payment of the consideration specified in the deed and did not make out a prima facie case for continuing prosecution against petitioner No. 2.

It treated any grievance about unpaid sale consideration as one for an appropriate civil forum.

The court also noted that the asserted earlier NCR or endorsement had not been produced, and its decision did not rely on proof of that assertion.

The petition had abated against petitioner No. 1 following his death.