'Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Scores In Property Deals': Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a cheating and forgery FIR arising out of a land agreement dispute, holding that the criminal case was lodged to escape civil liability and amounted to an abuse of the criminal process.

Justice H.S. Grewal said, "prima facie the allegations against the petitioners are not made out as the agreement to sell in question is a genuine document being a registered agreement. There is no allegation of cutting or overwriting, which could be apparent on the record and the allegation that “Rs.25,00,000/-” was mentioned instead of “Rs.1.25 crore” is totally absurd especially in the light of the fact that the complainant himself sold his land subsequently at a very low price i.e. Rs.35 lacs per acre."

The Court allowed a petition filed by Parveen Nain and others seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Ajay Kumar, who alleged that he had entered into an agreement on August 29, 2018 to sell about 56 kanals 3 marlas of land to the accused at the rate of ₹1.25 crore per acre.

According to the complainant, on March 7, 2019 three separate agreements were prepared when the accused sought additional time to arrange the balance sale consideration. He alleged that in one of the agreements (No. 13668), the accused fraudulently altered the sale consideration to ₹25 lakh per acre instead of ₹1.25 crore per acre by replacing pages of the agreement.

The complainant further alleged that the accused later used the allegedly forged agreement to file a civil suit for specific performance and also threatened him with dire consequences unless he executed the sale deed at the lower price.

Senior Advocate R.S. Rai, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature arising from an agreement to sell and that the complainant had already sold the land to another entity.

It was contended that the FIR was filed only to avoid civil liability and to counter the civil proceedings initiated by the petitioners for specific performance of the agreement.

Senior counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioners had committed a clear act of forgery by fraudulently changing the sale consideration in the agreement to sell.

It was further argued that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist and the pendency of a civil suit is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings where a prima facie case exists.

The High Court examined the agreement to sell in question and observed that the document was a registered agreement containing no visible cutting, overwriting or alteration.

Justice Grewal noted that the sale consideration of ₹25 lakh per acre was clearly written both in words and numerals in the agreement.

The Court also found it significant that the complainant had subsequently sold the land to M/s Celestial Valley LLP through a sale deed dated May 7, 2021 at a price of ₹35 lakh per acre. The Court observed that this fact undermined the complainant's claim that the property had been agreed to be sold at ₹1.25 crore per acre in 2019.

The High Court further noted that the petitioners had appeared before the Sub-Registrar on the scheduled date for execution of the sale deed and had even marked their presence through affidavits and photographs when the complainant failed to appear.

It noted that these circumstances indicated that the complainant had failed to honour the agreement and subsequently lodged the FIR to evade his civil liability. The Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding the circumstances in which criminal proceedings can be quashed.

It also relied on Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., where the Supreme Court cautioned against the growing tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal cases.

Justice Grewal also referred the Supreme Court's recent decision in Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), reiterating that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for recovering money or settling civil disputes.

The Court concluded that the allegations of forgery were inherently improbable and unsupported by the record, particularly since the agreement to sell appeared genuine and registered.

Holding that the FIR had been filed only to settle civil scores and amounted to an abuse of the criminal process, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.

Title: PARVEEN NAIN AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Mr. R,S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Veer Imaan Singh, Mr. Jashan Preet Singh and Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advo

Click here to read order