Civil Dispute Dressed as Criminal Offence — You Can’t Use FIRs to Fight Over Ancestral Property: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea for Police Action in Family Property Sale

“Unregistered Partition, No Fraud, No Crime — This Is a Case for Civil Court, Not Criminal Process”, - In a detailed and legally instructive judgment Himachal Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Revisional Court, both of which refused to direct registration of an FIR over an alleged fraudulent sale of ancestral property. Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that no offence of cheating or fraud was made out, as the allegations raised by the petitioner arose from a civil dispute rooted in family arrangements, not a cognizable criminal act.

“The dispute pending between the parties is civil, and the remedy of the complainant was to file a civil suit rather than apply under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.”

“You Sold the Delhi Property, So You Can’t Touch Solan?” — But Court Says Partition Deed Must Be Registered to Have Legal Consequences

The petitioner, Kapil Shankar, accused his uncles of selling property located in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, despite allegedly relinquishing their share in that land through a family settlement agreement in 1987, in exchange for property located in New Delhi. However, the Court noted that the agreement was unregistered, and therefore inadmissible in evidence for proving any change of ownership.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad [(2018) 7 SCC 646], the Court emphasized: “An unregistered partition agreement cannot be used for any purpose. If it purports to affect rights in immovable property, registration is mandatory.”

The Court further observed: “The complainant cannot derive any advantage from such an unregistered agreement. Oral evidence is barred by Section 91 of the Evidence Act when a written instrument exists.”

“Selling What You Don’t Own May Breach a Contract — But It Doesn’t Make You a Criminal”

Rejecting the claim that the accused had committed fraud or cheating by executing sale deeds, Justice Kainthla relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 and the recent 2025 ruling in Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa, to hold: “The sale of property by a person does not amount to misrepresentation or fraud upon other co-owners. Only the purchaser can allege cheating if they were misled about ownership.”

The Court clarified: “It is not the complainant’s case that the accused sold the property by impersonating him or by transferring rights they did not purport to own. No ingredients of Section 415 IPC are made out.”

“Disputes Over Co-ownership, Family Settlements and Sale Deeds Belong in Civil Court, Not Police Stations”

The petitioner argued that he had sent legal notices, made complaints to the police and Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken, prompting him to move the Trial Court under Section 156(3) CrPC. However, both the Magistrate and Sessions Judge held the case to be purely civil in nature — a finding the High Court upheld.

“Entries in revenue records merely show the parties as co-owners. Title disputes cannot be adjudicated in criminal proceedings. The petitioner’s remedy lies in a civil suit.”

“Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC Exist, But Aren’t Meant to Reopen Dead-End Revisions”

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, despite his revision having already been dismissed by the Sessions Court. The High Court reiterated settled law from Krishnan v. Krishnaveni and Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir: “Though the inherent power of the High Court is wide, it must be used sparingly and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. It cannot be used to substitute a second revision.”

In the present case, the Court found no perversity or miscarriage of justice in the findings of the lower courts and declined to intervene.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that no criminal offence had been made out, and that the proper course of action for the complainant lay in civil court. Justice Rakesh Kainthla concluded:

“The learned Courts below had taken a reasonable view of the matter… and no interference is required while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.”

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law is not a substitute for civil remedies, and that property disputes arising from family settlements must be resolved through civil suits, not through criminal complaints aimed at coercion or retribution.

Date of Decision: April 4, 2025