Quashing Refused Where Sale of Already Acquired Land Raises Prima Facie Cheating; Civil Dispute Plea Not Sufficient at Initial Stage: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Dharampal @ Dharmpal v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Date of Judgment: April 29, 2026
Citation: CRM-M No. 13539 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where allegations disclose that the accused sold land already acquired by the Government despite receiving compensation, such facts prima facie constitute offences of cheating and fraud. The plea that the dispute is civil in nature cannot be accepted at the stage of quashing when factual issues require investigation. The High Court reiterated that inherent powers for quashing are to be exercised sparingly and only where no offence is disclosed.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences including cheating, forgery, and conspiracy arising out of a land transaction.
The complainant alleged that his wife had purchased land through registered sale deeds after verifying ownership records. However, upon subsequent demarcation, it was discovered that a portion of the land had already been acquired by the National Highways Authority of India and compensation had been received by the accused prior to execution of the sale deeds. It was alleged that despite this knowledge, the accused sold land in excess of his ownership, thereby committing fraud.
The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature, relating to title and demarcation of land, and that no ingredients of cheating or forgery were made out. It was argued that the transaction was executed through registered sale deeds and mutations were sanctioned, and that the alleged deficiency in land was discovered only later. The petitioner also asserted that the FIR was an afterthought to exert pressure.
Opposing the petition, the State and complainant submitted that the accused had prior knowledge of acquisition and compensation, yet proceeded to sell the land, which prima facie indicated dishonest intention.
The High Court examined the scope of its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings and reiterated that at this stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence. It is sufficient if the allegations disclose a prima facie offence.
Upon analysis, the Court found that the allegation of selling land already acquired by the Government despite receiving compensation raises serious factual issues indicating possible fraudulent intent. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in quashing proceedings and require investigation and trial.
Decision: The petition for quashing was dismissed. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case and require investigation. It declined to interfere under Section 528 BNSS, observing that disputed questions of fact and the existence of dishonest intention must be examined during trial and not at the stage of quashing.