The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating under IPC to determine the quashing of the FIR.

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

1. By way of filing an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR in Delha P.S. Case No. 37 of 2013 registered on 4.5.2013 under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2. The respondent no. 3 Arjun Prasad lodged an FIR on 4.5.2013 alleging therein that he had negotiated with the petitioner for purchase of 3600 sq. ft. @ Rs. 3 lakh per katha against which Rs. 50,000/- was paid in advance to the petitioner on 8.11.2011 by way of Cheque No. 946087 of Punjab National Bank. It is further alleged that the petitioner got a sum of Rs. 4 lakh deposited in cash with his personal deed writer on 23.1.2012. On 26.6.2012 the respondent no. 3 further deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lakh vide Cheque No. 434783 of Punjab National Bank, Bairagi Branch into an account at Punjab National Bank, Belaganj at the direction of the petitioner. It has been alleged that thereafter as and when respondent no. 3 attempted to make payment of balance amount and sought for execution of the sale deed and registration thereof the accused persons defered the same for one reason or the other. Lastly, it has been stated that on 26.4.2013 at about 10 a.m. when the respondent no. 3 persuaded the petitioner for acceptance of the balance amount and for registry of the sale deed, he refused to do so and left respondent no. 3 to choose his remedy in law.

3. It is contended that from a bare reading of the FIR it would appear that respondent no. 3 has stated about some negotiations with the petitioner as regards sale of land measuring 3600 sq. feet but has not produced any agreement for sale on account of such negotiation which itself falsifies the claim of respondent no. 3. He further submits that even otherwise the grievance of respondent no. 3 would appear to be one of payment of part of consideration amount and non-execution of the sale deed in his favour by the petitioner which is not an offence of criminal breach of trust nor of cheating and is a mere case of non-performance of alleged promise made by the petitioner which is a civil dispute between the parties and does not attract criminal liability. He submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken to be true at its face value for the sake of argument, the same do not make out any criminal offence committed by the petitioner.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court delivered in Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha vs. Narayan Singh and Another, (1998) 5 SCC 694, Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh, (2005) 13 SCC 699, Dalip Kaur and Others vs. Jagnar Singh and Another, (2009) 14 SCC 696 and Ram Biraji Devi and Another vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 669.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the investigation of the case is going on and during preliminary investigation the allegations made in the FIR by the informant of the case have been found to be true. He submits that the allegations made in the FIR may have some element of dispute of civil nature, but ingredients of criminal offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are also attracted in the present case.

6. He has submitted that after receiving Rs. 6.50 lacs, the petitioner has refused to execute the sale deed as agreed by him initially. He submits that though the informant always expressed his willingness to pay the balance amount, the petitioner, who happens to be the director of NLBD Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. in whose account part of the money has been paid, has refused to execute the sale deed. He submits that factual foundation for the offence have been led in the FIR and it would not be proper for this Court at the stage of investigation to quash the proceeding in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that simply because a