Uttarakhand HC Refuses To Quash Alleged Land-Fraud FIR Against Buyer, Citing 70 Property Sales In 7 Years And Need For Investigation

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 0276 of 2026, registered at Police Station Doiwala under Sections 120-B, 420 and 467 IPC, concerning transactions in immovable property at Mauza Majri Grant.

He claimed to have purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 24 September 2019 from the legal heirs of Pancham Singh, with mutation entered in his name in 2021; the informant alleged that the property had previously been sold to him by Pancham Singh and his sons in 2013.

The petitioner argued that the dispute was civil, the FIR disclosed no offence, and the criminal proceedings were brought to harass him.

The caveator relied on documents said to show that the petitioner, directly or through family members and a power of attorney, had sold approximately 70 properties in the Dehradun–Rishikesh area between 2019 and 2026.

The State opposed quashing, describing the allegations as serious and potentially connected to land scams.

Sections 120-B, 420 and 467 IPC were the offences alleged in the FIR; the Court did not determine their ingredients separately at this stage.

In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court applied the principles stated in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401: quashing is to be exercised sparingly; the court should not assess the reliability or genuineness of FIR allegations; criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the initial stage; and, where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, investigation should generally be permitted to proceed.

The Court also noted that interim protection against investigation or coercive steps should not be granted routinely while facts and evidence remain under investigation.

It further stated that a civil transaction may have criminal aspects where cheating, forgery or conspiracy is alleged.

The Court considered the competing claims about the property transactions and the petitioner’s alleged repeated dealings in property.

The allegation that the property had already been sold to the informant in 2013, together with the petitioner’s subsequent purchase and the material presented about approximately 70 property sales, raised matters requiring investigation; the Court treated these circumstances as grounds for suspicion, not as established proof of guilt.

Applying Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to assess the merits or veracity of the allegations at the quashing stage and held that the dispute’s civil character did not, by itself, preclude criminal investigation where cheating, forgery and conspiracy were alleged.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending application was disposed of.