Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes when no offense is committed.

ORDER :

These appeals have been preferred against the order dated 30th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition Nos. 7657 of 2009 and 7588 of 2010, whereby the High Court has declined to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants by respondent No. 2 by filing a criminal complaint bearing CC No. 1736 of 2006 dated 26th June 2006 before the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The appellants are named as accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

2. The case set out in the complaint is that accused No. 2 (A 2) introduced accused No.1 (A 1) as owner of the land admeasuring 39 acres 19 guntas in the State of Karnataka. A-2 assured the complainant that A-1 was a genuine person and the complainant agreed to purchase the land in December, 2004 and paid Rs. 10 Lacs as advance. On 22nd January, 2005 a MOU was also entered into between the complainants and A-1. A-3 and A-4 were the witnesses. In all, a sum of Rs. 85 Lacs was paid by the complainant by way of demand drafts to A-1. The accused were to hand over the documents of the property before 15th April, 2015 to enable the complainant to arrange the loan from the banks. Since this was not done, the complainant asked the accused to either return his money or to comply with the commitments. A-1 paid two cheques dated 5th May, 2005 for Rs. 7 Lacs and Rs. 85 Lacs respectively but the cheques were dishonoured. Thereafter, negotiations took place between the parties and the complainant arranged bank draft of Rs. 1 crore on 5th September, 2005 to complete the deal on the condition that copies of documents will be made available to him. But when the complainant received no response, he believed that the appellants had cheated him by making him to pay Rs. 85 Lacs and further making him to arrange a sum of Rs. 1 crore. A-1 executed sale deeds in favour of A-2 pertaining to part of the said land which showed that A-1 was not going to complete the deal.

3. The appellant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings on the plea that it was a civil dispute and the appellants-accused had paid to the complainant an amount of Rs. 95 Lacs as follows :

Sl.No.	D.D. No.	Date	Amount
1.	005950	25-9-2006	10,00,000/
2.	005951	25-9-2006	10,00,000/
3.	005952	25-9-2006	10,00,000/
4.	005954	25-9-2006	5,00,000/
5.	005956	7-10-2006	22,00,000/
6.	007556	7-10-2006	20,00,000/
7.	007557	7-10-2006	8,00,000/
8.	007560	7-10-2006	10,00,000/
		Total amount	Rs. 95,00,000/-

4. The above payment was against receipt of Rs. 85 Lacs by the appellants. According to the appellants the payment covered the principal as well as interest.

5. It was further submitted by the appellants that the deal between the parties could not materialize because of market conditions but no inference could be drawn that the appellants had the intention to cheat. Respondent No.2 complainant had already received the entire amount paid by A-1 with interest and the MOU has been cancelled. The complainant also did not file any suit.

6. The High Court declined to quash the complaint. It held that the complainant had paid to the accused a sum of Rs. 85 Lacs. The accused issued two cheques of Rs. 7 Lacs and Rs. 85 Lacs for returning the said amount but the cheques were dishonoured. Thereafter, accused has paid a sum of Rs. 95 Lacs as against the amount of Rs. 85 Lacs paid by the complainant. Since the payment was made after filing of the complaint, a case of cheating was made out. The operative part of the order is as follows :

"The contention of the petitioners' counsel cannot be accepted since the said cheques for Rs. 85,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- were dishonoured as the payment was stopped by the drawer and the payment of Rs. 95,00,000/- on different dates as mentioned in the petition is subsequent to filing o