Prabhat Pator vs The State Of Assam & Anr.

(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)

Heard Mr. D Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the impugned FIR dated 05.07.2025 in connection with Raha Police Station Case No. 75/2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 1489/2025 under Sections 319(2)/316(1)/296/3(5) of BNS.

The informant/Opposite Party No. 2 lodged an FIR before the O/C., Raha Police Station on 05.07.2025, alleging that the petitioner, on the pretext of selling a plot of land, took an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand) from the informant as an advance amount. Thereafter, the informant requested the petitioner to return the money and, though the petitioner had returned some amount of money, the balance amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand) had not been returned to the informant till date. When the informant asked the petitioner to return the money, the petitioner and his wife, Sri Arati Pator, abused the informant with filthy language and threatened her.

The stand of the petitioner is that, in the year 2020, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the informant for the sale of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha, 5 lessa, covered by Dag No. 680/558, Patta No. 323/321, situated at Village Raha Circle, Mouza: Dighaliati, Nagaon, in the district of Nagaon, Assam, but the informant failed to pay the balance amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, for which reason the petitioner did not hand over the possession of the said land. Thereafter, the informant, being aggrieved, pressurized the petitioner to return the advance amount. Accordingly, the petitioner made a part payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- out of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand), and the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/-was deducted by the petitioner towards expenses incurred for applying for sale permission, advocate’s fees, etc., which was well within the knowledge of the informant. Despite the same, the informant demanded the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest. As the petitioner refused to comply with the informant’s demand, the informant/Opposite Party No. 2, being aggrieved, filed a false and concocted FIR alleging that the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/-, but the same is not supported by any money receipt. Apart from this, the cause of action arose in the year 2020, whereas the FIR was lodged only in the year 2025, and no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR has been mentioned. As such, on a plain reading of the FIR, it is very clear that the FIR lodged by the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 is an afterthought and has been lodged with a view to blackmailing and pressurizing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- as per her demand. Accordingly, the impugned FIR is liable to be set aside and quashed.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 had executed the aforesaid agreement for sale, but the informant failed to make payment as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, because of which the possession of the land was not handed over to the informant and the petitioner, having returned Rs. 1,25,000/- out of the advance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, after deducting expenses of Rs. 25,000/- and it is, therefore, submitted that the informant had lodged the instant FIR with a view to deriving wrongful gain and pressurizing the petitioner to sell the said plot of land to the informant, more than five years after the accrual of the actual cause of action, without mentioning any reason for such delay.

Learned counsel submitted that, in the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the case is purely of a civil nature and no criminality is involved and, therefore, the FIR herein is liable to be quashed.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that the petitioner, after taking the advance amount, has admittedly returned only Rs. 1,25,000/- and thereafter refused to execute the sale deed and thereby cheated the informant and, therefore, the dispute cannot be said to be of a civil nature.

A perusal of the agreement for sale, which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the instant petition and which is not disputed by the Opposite Party No. 2, reveals that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- only was paid to the petitioner at the time of the execution of the agreement for sale.

The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it has been stated that the agreement had specifically provided that the petitioner would execute the sale deed after receipt of 50% of the balance sale consideration, but the petitioner did not honour his contractual obligation by taking effective steps for obtaining the sale permission and, instead, avoided his contractual obligations and failed to complete the transaction.

From the aforesaid stand of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2, as stated in her own affidavit, it appears that the dispute is purely of a civil nature, only concerning avoidance of contractual obligations.

It is further stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner, on different occasions, advanced certain sums of money to the Opposite Party No. 2 as friendly financial assistance, a substantial portion of which had already been repaid by the Opposite Party No. 2 to the petitioner.

The said amounts were paid by way of bank transactions, cheques, and cash, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition. However, it is not understood as to how the aforesaid transactions have any bearing on the agreement for sale in question or the sale of the land of the petitioner to the Opposite Party No. 2. There is also no allegation that the petitioner had executed the agreement for sale with a dishonest intention to cheat the Opposite Party No. 2. Furthermore, the other allegation in the FIR that, when the informant asked the petitioner/accused to return the money, the accused person and his wife abused her in a filthy language and threatened her, by itself does not make out any offence under Sections 296/3(5) of the BNS, as the alleged occurrence did not happen in a public place and no observe act is attributed to the petitioner.

In Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others: (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 259. it was emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an Instrument of harassment or private vendetta. In Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 732, the Apex Court again reiterated that criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of civil nature, filed solely to harass the accused or to exert pressure in civil litigation, constitute an abuse of process.

In Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462 and others, the Apex Court disapproved the practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies, observing that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the dispute is essentially civil. The Court cautioned High Courts not to direct settlements in such matters but to apply the settled principles in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors: 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.

In the facts of the present case, the dispute appears to be purely of a civil nature, and, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the impugned FIR dated 05.07.2025, in connection with Raha Police Station Case No. 75/2025, stands quashed.