Introduction:

In Parveen Nain and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed an important issue concerning the misuse of criminal proceedings in disputes that are essentially civil in nature. The case revolved around a First Information Report (FIR) registered for serious offences including cheating, criminal conspiracy, and forgery in connection with a land sale agreement.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They contended that the criminal case was maliciously initiated by the complainant with the sole intention of avoiding civil liability arising out of a contractual dispute related to the sale of agricultural land.

The dispute stemmed from an agreement to sell agricultural land measuring approximately 56 kanals and 3 marlas, which had allegedly been entered into between the complainant and the accused. The complainant later alleged that the petitioners had fraudulently altered the sale consideration in the agreement, thereby committing forgery and cheating.

However, the petitioners strongly denied these allegations, asserting that the agreement was a genuine registered document and that the FIR had been filed only after they initiated civil proceedings seeking specific performance of the agreement.

The matter was heard by Justice H.S. Grewal, who closely examined the facts, the documentary evidence, and the surrounding circumstances. After evaluating the material on record and considering relevant legal precedents, the High Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature.

Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings, reiterating the settled legal principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool to settle private civil disputes or to evade contractual obligations.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate R.S. Rai, strongly argued that the criminal proceedings initiated against them were entirely baseless and motivated, and that the dispute between the parties was fundamentally civil in nature.

At the outset, the petitioners submitted that the complainant had voluntarily entered into a registered agreement to sell agricultural land measuring around 56 kanals and 3 marlas on August 29, 2018. The agreement clearly specified the terms and conditions of the proposed sale and was executed in accordance with law.

According to the petitioners, when the time came for execution of the final sale deed, certain logistical issues arose which required additional time for completing the transaction. As a result, three separate agreements were executed on March 7, 2019, reflecting revised timelines for payment of the remaining sale consideration and completion of the transaction.

The petitioners denied the allegation that they had fraudulently altered the sale consideration in one of the agreements. They maintained that the agreement in question was a registered document, and therefore it could not have been manipulated or altered without detection.

Senior Advocate Rai emphasized that the document did not contain any visible cutting, overwriting, or alteration, which would normally be expected if the document had indeed been tampered with. In fact, the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement was clearly written both in words as well as in numerals, indicating that the document had been prepared carefully and lawfully.

Another significant argument raised by the petitioners was that they had already initiated a civil suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell, as the complainant had failed to honour the contractual obligation of executing the sale deed.

It was contended that the filing of the FIR was a retaliatory step taken by the complainant after he realized that he might be held liable in the civil proceedings. According to the petitioners, the criminal case was filed solely to create pressure and avoid compliance with the agreement.

The petitioners also highlighted their conduct during the transaction process. They submitted that on the scheduled date for execution of the sale deed, they had appeared before the Sub-Registrar’s office and had even recorded their presence through affidavits and photographs. However, the complainant failed to appear on the said date, thereby preventing the completion of the transaction.

This conduct, according to the petitioners, demonstrated that they were ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations, whereas the complainant had attempted to back out of the agreement.

Another crucial fact pointed out by the petitioners was that the complainant had subsequently sold the same land to another entity, namely M/s Celestial Valley LLP, through a registered sale deed dated May 7, 2021.

The petitioners argued that this clearly showed that the complainant had breached the earlier agreement and was now trying to shield himself from the consequences of his actions by lodging a criminal complaint.

It was further contended that the allegations of forgery and cheating were inherently improbable and unsupported by evidence. Since the agreement to sell was a registered document and there were no visible signs of manipulation, the claim that the sale consideration had been altered was completely untenable.

The petitioners therefore urged the High Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the FIR, as the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Arguments on Behalf of the Complainant and the State:

The complainant and the State strongly opposed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR and argued that the allegations disclosed the commission of serious criminal offences, which required a full trial.

Senior Advocate Kanwaljit Singh, appearing on behalf of the complainant, contended that the petitioners had committed a clear act of forgery by fraudulently altering the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell.

According to the complainant, the original agreement executed between the parties specified a sale price of ₹1.25 crore per acre. However, the petitioners allegedly manipulated one of the agreements by replacing certain pages and altering the sale consideration to ₹25 lakh per acre.

The complainant argued that such manipulation of a contractual document constituted forgery and cheating, and therefore the registration of the FIR was justified.

It was also alleged that the petitioners had subsequently used the allegedly forged agreement to initiate a civil suit seeking specific performance of the contract. The complainant claimed that this was part of a larger scheme to force him into executing the sale deed at a grossly undervalued price.

The complainant further alleged that the petitioners had threatened him with dire consequences unless he complied with their demands and executed the sale deed in accordance with the altered agreement.

On behalf of the State, it was argued that the allegations made in the FIR were serious in nature and required proper investigation and adjudication through trial.

The State submitted that the High Court should exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings only in exceptional circumstances, and that the present case involved disputed questions of fact which should be determined during trial.

Another important argument advanced by the complainant’s counsel was that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist. The mere fact that a dispute has civil elements does not automatically negate the existence of criminal liability.

It was argued that where the allegations disclose the commission of offences such as forgery, cheating, and conspiracy, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because a civil dispute also exists between the parties.

The respondents therefore urged the High Court to dismiss the petition and allow the criminal proceedings to continue, so that the truth of the allegations could be determined through a full trial.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

After hearing the arguments from both sides and examining the material placed on record, the Punjab & Haryana High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the dispute.

Justice H.S. Grewal carefully examined the agreement to sell, which formed the basis of the allegations of forgery and cheating.

The Court observed that the agreement in question was a registered document, and therefore it carried a presumption of authenticity unless proven otherwise.

Upon examining the document, the Court found that there was no visible cutting, overwriting, or alteration which would indicate that the agreement had been tampered with.

The Court further noted that the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement—₹25 lakh per acre—was clearly written both in words and numerals, making the allegation that it had been fraudulently inserted highly improbable.

Justice Grewal observed that the complainant’s claim that the amount had been altered from ₹1.25 crore per acre to ₹25 lakh per acre appeared absurd and unsupported by any material evidence.

The Court also took into account the subsequent sale of the land by the complainant to M/s Celestial Valley LLP in May 2021 at a price of ₹35 lakh per acre.

This fact significantly undermined the complainant’s claim that the property had earlier been agreed to be sold at ₹1.25 crore per acre.

The Court reasoned that if the market value of the land was indeed as high as alleged by the complainant, it would be unlikely for him to sell the same property at a much lower price shortly thereafter.

Another important circumstance considered by the Court was the conduct of the petitioners during the execution of the agreement.

The Court noted that the petitioners had appeared before the Sub-Registrar on the scheduled date for execution of the sale deed and had documented their presence through affidavits and photographs.

This indicated that the petitioners were willing to fulfil their contractual obligations, whereas the complainant had failed to honour the agreement.

Justice Grewal concluded that the FIR had been filed only after the petitioners initiated civil proceedings seeking specific performance of the agreement, suggesting that the criminal case was intended to avoid civil liability and exert pressure on the petitioners.

The Court then referred to several important judgments of the Supreme Court of India concerning the misuse of criminal law in civil disputes.

In particular, the Court relied on the landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which laid down the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings.

The Court also referred to Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., where the Supreme Court cautioned against the increasing tendency to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases.

Further reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), where it was reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a mechanism for recovering money or settling civil disputes.

Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the High Court held that the allegations of forgery and cheating were inherently improbable and unsupported by the documentary evidence.

The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings had been initiated solely to settle civil scores and to evade contractual obligations.

Therefore, the continuation of the criminal case would amount to abuse of the process of law.

In view of these findings, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.