IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 367 of 2006 Deep Chandra Agarwal & another ……… Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………. Respondents Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State/respondent no. 1 Mr. Pradeep Hariya, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Date of Judgment : 23.03.2011 JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. The subject matter of the First Information Report is pure and simple a civil dispute. The informant was admittedly a tenant under the applicants of the property, which the applicants agreed to sell to the informant. Subsequently, informant paid the consideration money in full, as is the contention of the informant, whereupon the applicants entered into yet another agreement with the informant. The last agreement specifically provided that as and when called for, applicants will execute the instrument of transfer. It is the contention of the informant that the applicants did not execute the same. The First Information Report has been filed proceeding on the basis that there had been inducement on the part of the applicants that they are the owners of the property in question whereas, in fact, they are not recorded owners thereof. As yet, no one has claimed, to the knowledge of the informant, to be the owner of the property in question. The performance or non-performance by the applicants of their obligations under the contract cannot be a subject matter of a criminal case. In the circumstances, the First Information Report and all proceedings on the basis thereof are quashed. This order will not prevent the informant to take recourse to specific performance of agreement. 2. The application is disposed of accordingly. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.03.2011 Aswal