Civil Remedy Does Not Bar Criminal Action When Property Seller Takes Money and Then Transfers the Same Property to Someone Else
Case Name: Saurabh Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Citation: 2026 INSC 548
Date of Judgment/Order: May 26, 2026
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Held: The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail in an economic offence cannot be granted by treating the dispute as merely civil when the allegations disclose fraudulent inducement, receipt of substantial money, and subsequent transfer of the same property to a third party. The Court clarified that the existence of a civil remedy or a prayer for refund does not wipe out criminal allegations if the ingredients of cheating or fraud are prima facie made out. While deciding anticipatory bail, courts must consider relevant factors such as the nature and gravity of allegations, amount involved, criminal antecedents, conduct of the accused during investigation, and the need for fair and effective investigation.
Summary: The complainant alleged that respondent No. 2, Monika Dwivedi, along with her son and daughter, represented themselves as owners of a residential property at Lucknow and entered into a notarized agreement to sell dated 08.01.2024 for a total sale consideration of INR 4.30 crore. The complainant claimed that he paid INR 3.55 crore in instalments, but despite receiving the substantial amount, respondent No. 2 and her son executed a sale deed dated 24.06.2024 in favour of a third party, namely Pankaj Mohan Mishra. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 IPC. The High Court granted anticipatory bail by relying on factors such as the agreement being notarized and not registered, the daughter being abroad, only part consideration having been paid, and the complainant seeking refund, treating the matter as civil in nature. The Supreme Court found this reasoning legally flawed. It held that these considerations were peripheral and did not answer the core allegation of deception at inception, receipt of substantial consideration, and later alienation of the property to a third party. The Court also noted that the High Court failed to consider relevant factors, including the economic nature of the offence, the large amount involved, similar criminal antecedents, and the fact that coercive steps were required to secure the accused’s presence during investigation.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 06.10.2025 granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, Monika Dwivedi. The anticipatory bail granted to her was cancelled. The Court held that this was not a fit case for anticipatory bail considering the seriousness of the allegations, the magnitude of the transaction, the alleged deliberate conduct of transferring the property after receiving substantial money, the criminal antecedents attributed to the accused, and the requirement of a fair and effective investigation. The Court clarified that its observations were confined only to the issue of anticipatory bail and would not influence the trial on merits.