Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows: The court emphasized that mere non-performance of a contract, such as failure to execute a sale, does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust. Such disputes are civil in nature and should be resolved through civil remedies rather than criminal proceedings (!) . The FIR did not establish any essential elements of cheating under Section 420 or criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC. Specifically, there was no fraudulent inducement, dishonest intention, or entrustment of property by the accused. The ingredients necessary for these offences were absent (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The act of the appellants refusing to execute the sale deed, after receiving consideration, was found not to constitute cheating or breach of trust. The payments made were in accordance with the agreement, and the dispute pertains to civil rights, which can be addressed through a civil suit, not criminal prosecution (!) . The court highlighted that the complaint appeared to be an attempt to pressure the appellants into executing the sale deed or to extract money, rather than a genuine criminal offence. It underscored that criminal law should not be

Radheyshyam vs State of Rajasthan - 2024 Supreme(SC) 681

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 681

VIKRAM NATH, P. B. VARALE
Radheyshyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R, AOR Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varun Mudgal, Adv. Mrs. Meenakshi Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Harsha Vinoy, Adv. Mrs. Padhmalakshmi Iyengar, Adv. Ms. Raj Bala, Adv. Mr. Shreeyash U Lalit, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. Md Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohd Sharyab Ali, Adv. Mr. Avnish Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Tandon, Adv. Mr. Shreyans Raniwala, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Rovin Singh Solanki, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Jadhav, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The court emphasized that mere non-performance of a contract, such as failure to execute a sale, does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust. Such disputes are civil in nature and should be resolved through civil remedies rather than criminal proceedings (!) .
The FIR did not establish any essential elements of cheating under Section 420 or criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC. Specifically, there was no fraudulent inducement, dishonest intention, or entrustment of property by the accused. The ingredients necessary for these offences were absent (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The act of the appellants refusing to execute the sale deed, after receiving consideration, was found not to constitute cheating or breach of trust. The payments made were in accordance with the agreement, and the dispute pertains to civil rights, which can be addressed through a civil suit, not criminal prosecution (!) .
The court highlighted that the complaint appeared to be an attempt to pressure the appellants into executing the sale deed or to extract money, rather than a genuine criminal offence. It underscored that criminal law should not be

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2023 the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has declined to quash the proceedings arising out of First Information Report [FIR] No.215 of 2022 under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] registered at Police Station Rajgarh, district Churu, Rajasthan and, accordingly, dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] filed by the appellants.

3. Respondent no.2 and the appellants entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 29.06.2020 with respect to sale of Swami Towers, Shitla Bazar, Rajgarh for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,11,00,000/- (Rupees five crore eleven lakhs only) and an advance payment of Rs.11 lakhs i.e. Rs.5 lakhs in cash and Rs.6 lakhs by way of a cheque was made at the time of Agreement to Sell. Further respondent no.2 agreed to make the payment of Rs.1 crore by 30th September, 2020 and the balance amount of Rs.4 crores in the next fifteen months beginning 30th September, 2020, as per his convenience. The entire payment was to be made within 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement to Sell.

4. It appears that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 681

VIKRAM NATH, P. B. VARALERadheyshyam – AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan – Respondent

VIKRAM NATH, P. B. VARALE
Radheyshyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent