# Lalit Pundir & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 111
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 22948 of 2019
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalit-pundir-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53912
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1 All. Lalit Pundir & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
111
due course of the cheque may file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of decision in
the criminal case and, in that event, delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been
condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the NI Act. This direction shall be
deemed to be applicable to all such pending cases where the complaint does not proceed further in
view of our answer to Question (i). As we have already held that a complaint filed before the expiry
of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is
not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any
later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within
the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso,
satisfying the court of sufficient cause. Question (ii) is answered accordingly.

14. After going through the record and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, paragraph-41
wherein it is provided that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque may file a fresh
complaint within one month from the date of decision in the criminal case and, in that event, delay
in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of
Section 142 of the NI Act.

15. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15
days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not
maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later
stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the
time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso, satisfying
the court of sufficient cause.

16. In the present case also, this Court in Application U/s 482 No. 82 of 2022 has already
given direction to the opposite party no.2 to file a fresh petition within a period of one month. The
argument that fresh legal notice is required is misconceived.

17. Both the application(s) are rejected. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 111
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 22948 of 2019

Lalit Pundir & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Matter pertains to quashing of criminal proceedings under S.s 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. arising out of an
agreement to sell and alleged non-execution of sale deed, invoking inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnotes
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Abuse of process of law -
Civil dispute given colour of criminal offence.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S.s 406, 405 - Criminal breach of trust - Ingredients - Entrustment of
property essential - Advance payment under agreement to sale does not amount to entrustment.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 504 - Intentional insult - Absence of material particulars - Offence
not made out.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S.s 503, 506 - Criminal intimidation - Vague allegations - No intent to
cause alarm or compel action - Proceedings unsustainable.
Civil vs. Criminal Liability - Breach of contract - Mere failure to honor an agreement to sale is a
civil wrong - Conversion of civil liability into criminal litigation is an abuse of process of law -
Criminal prosecution impermissible.

Held: The agreement to sale does not confer any title to the property being transferred in favour of
applicants - It is also admitted case of informant-opposite party no.2 that neither the property in question was
entrusted upon the accused persons or the accused persons were given any dominion over property - A
simple transaction with regard to payment of advance for purchase of property has been termed as a criminal
offence - If any person, who has taken advance amount arising out of any agreement to sale and
subsequently, fails to execute the sale deed, the remedy lies under the civil jurisdiction - Mere failure to
honour the agreement to sale by the applicants would not constitute an offence under S. 406 I.P.C. - No
description of any insult has been given by the informant in the first information report or in his statement
recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. - The allegations of criminal intimidation are wholly vague in nature and are not
supported by other witnesses - A simple case of breach of contract of agreement to sale, which is having civil
liability has been converted into a criminal litigation, which is an abuse of process of law - Accordingly, the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed -application allowed. (Paras 10,13,15,18,19,20)

Case Law Cited
Radheyshyam and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2311

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973

List of Keywords
agreement to sale; advance amount; criminal breach of trust; entrustment; dominion over property; civil
liability; abuse of process of law; criminal intimidation; intentional insult; Specific performance

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings of Case Crime
No.1717 of 2017, State vs. Lalit Pundir, under S.s 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sanjay Mishra
Advs. for the Respondents:
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J.)
1 All. Lalit Pundir & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
113

1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by applicants to quash entire
proceedings of Case Crime No.1717 of 2017, State Vs. Lalit Pundir, under Sections 406, 504, 506
I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh pending in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh
pursuant to charge sheet dated 23.8.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 13.12.2018.

2. The opposite party no.2-Yogendra Singh is informant, who has lodged first information
report on 15.10.017 at Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh, under Sections 406, 504 & 506
I.P.C. against applicants. As per allegations in first information report, it is alleged by informant
that informant entered into an agreement for sale of plot with applicant no.1-Lalit Pundir for a sum
of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which, on 1.8.2012 from the account of elder brother of informant,
namely, Oshveer Singh a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- was paid to applicant no.1 by cheque and a further
amount of Rs.6,90,000/- was paid by cash.

3. It is also agreed that remaining amount would be paid at time of execution of sale deed.
Cash was given infront of Devendra Kumar and Luv Kush in the year 2013. Applicant no.2-Rajesh
went to Jaipur and, thereafter, informant asked applicant no.1 and applicant no.3 to execute the sale
deed. However, aforesaid persons were delaying execution of sale deed on ground that when
applicant no.2 would come from Jaipur they will execute the sale deed. On 23.7.2013 a sum of
Rs.49,000/- was paid by cheque by applicants to informant. In January, 2014, when informant
asked applicants for execution of sale deed, applicants have stated that same would be executed
within 4-6 months. On 31.7.2017, they promise to execute the sale deed. On aforesaid date, when
informant went to the house of applicants, the applicants have stated to come to Registry office and
when informant reached Registry office and waited for applicants till 7.00 pm, informant went to
house of applicants and asked as to why sale deed was not executed, applicants started abusing and
threatened that if informant come to house of applicants they would physically assault informant.
The applicants are neither returning the amount nor executing the sale deed.

4. In pursuance to aforesaid first informant report, statement of informant was recorded by
Investigating Officer, who has supported prosecution story. The Investigating Officer has also
recorded statement of witness Devendra Kumar, who has stated that deal was agreed upon for a
sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.3,10,000/- was given by cheque and Rs.6,90,000/- was
given in cash and at the time of execution of sale deed Rs.5,00,000/- is required to be paid. The sale
deed was not executed by applicants. The Investigating Officer has further recorded the statement
of witness Luv Kush, who has also supported prosecution case. The Investigating Officer
thereafter, submitted charge sheet on 23.8.2018 under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C. against
applicants. In pursuance to aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance order has been issued on 13.10.2018
under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C.

5. This Court on 24.6.2019 issued notice to opposite party no.2-informant and by office report
dated 27.9.2023 it is reported that notice has been served on opposite party no.2. On 2.1.2024, no
one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. By order dated 12.11.2025, on account of nonappearance of opposite party no.2, this case was proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party no.2.

6. The prosecution case is to the effect that a sale transaction of a plot was agreed upon
between the parties for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Out of which, Rs.3,10,000/- was paid by cheque
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Rs.6,90,000/- was paid by cash by informant to applicants. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- being
remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It is allegation of
informant that sale deed has not been executed by applicants despite the request made by
informant.

7. The applicant have been summoned under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C.

8. Section 406 Indian Penal Code provides punishment for offence of breach of trust. The
offence for breach of trust has been envisaged under Section 405 I.P.C., which is quoted hereunder:

"405. Criminal breach of trust.-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property,
or with any dominion over property, or dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other
person to do, commits "criminal breath of trust"."

9. Insofar as offence for criminal breach of trust is concerned, ingredients are to the effect that
the accused should be entrusted with property or with dominion over property, who dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use the property in question or misappropriates or converts
in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
of any legal contract.

10. In the present case, it is the case of informant-opposite party no.2 that only an agreement
to sale of property was agreed upon between applicants and opposite party no.2 and some amount
was extended in advance. The agreement to sale does not confer any title to the property being
transferred in favour of applicants. It is also admitted case of informant-opposite party no.2 that
neither the property in question was entrusted upon the accused persons or the accused persons
were given any dominion over property. It is also not the allegation of informant that aforesaid
property was dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use. A simple transaction with
regard to payment of advance for purchase of property has been termed as a criminal offence. If
any person, who has taken advance amount arising out of any agreement to sale and subsequently,
fails to execute the sale deed, the remedy lies under the civil jurisdiction.

11. It is to be noted that it is not the the allegation of informant-opposite party no.2 that
applicants had mislead at the initial stage of agreement to sale in any manner.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Radheyshyam and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and
another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2311 has held that mere non-performance of agreement to sale
itself does not amount to criminal breach of trust. Relevant paragraph are extracted hereunder:-

"6. As already indicated above, a perusal of the complaint which has been registered as
the FIR does not spell out any element or ingredient of cheating or breach of trust. Mere nonperformance of an Agreement to Sell by itself does not amount to cheating and breach of trust.
Respondent no.2 has adequate remedy of filing a Civil Suit for relief of specific performance of a
1 All. Lalit Pundir & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
115
contract which he has already availed and the suit is still pending. The FIR only appears to be an
arm-twisting mechanism to pressurize the appellants to execute the Sale Deed or to extract money.
Every civil wrong cannot be converted into a criminal wrong. As we find in the present case,
respondent no.2 is trying to abuse the criminal machinery for ulterior motives. It is not his case
that the appellants duped him to pay the advance amount and entered into an Agreement to Sell.
The High Court fell in error in recording a finding that the ingredients of offences under sections
420 and 406 of I.P.C. are present in the instant case."

11. For an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, the following ingredients must
exist:

i. The accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;

ii. The accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that
property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do
so; and

iii. Such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal
contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.

12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by
respondent no.2-complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement
to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been
entrusted with the appellants by respondent no.2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are
refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since
there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby
criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out."

13. In view of the aforesaid reasoning mere failure to honour the agreement to sale by the
applicants would not constitute an offence under Section 406 I.P.C.

14. The applicants have also been summoned under Section 504 I.P.C. The aforesaid provision
of law provides for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The aforesaid offence
provides that whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending
or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to
commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to two years or
with fine, or with both.

15. In the present case, no description of any insult has been given by the informant in the first
information report or in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, no
material particulars have been provided by the informant as to the facts and circumstances which
would give provocation to the informant to break public peace or to commit any offence. Once
such allegations are not the foundation of the first information report or the statement of the
informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., then the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. would not
be made out against the applicants.

16. The applicants have also been summoned under Section 506 I.P.C. Section 506 I.P.C.
provides for punishment for criminal intimidation. The offence of initimidation is provided under
Section 503 I.P.C., which is quoted hereunder:-
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"503. Criminal intimidation.-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested,
with intent to cause alarm tothat person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the
menas of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."

17. As per the prosecution case, the allegation pertains to non-execution of the sale deed in
pursuance to the agreement to sale and the payment of advance amount. The allegation in the first
information report is that the applicants have abused and have threatened with life. The allegations
are wholly vague in nature and neither the nature of the abusive language used by the applicants
have been stated by the informant in the first information report nor in his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C.

18. It is also to be noted that although there is allegation with regard to threatening for life.
However, there is no allegation to the effect that the aforesaid threatening was to cause the
informant to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that
person is legally entitled to do. The allegations of criminal intimidation are wholly vague in nature
and are not supported by other witnesses.

19. In the present case, a simple case of breach of contract of agreement to sale, which is
having civil liability has been converted into a criminal litigation, which is an abuse of process of
law. The informant has the civil remedy for enforcement of the contract of agreement to sale or for
breach of contract. At this stage, permitting the criminal prosecution of the applicants would be an
abuse of process of law.

20. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. The present
application is allowed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 116
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 37780 of 2019

Raj Bihari Singh @ Raj Bihari & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of chargesheet and cognizance order u/s 306, 504 and 506 IPC.

Headnotes