The judgment emphasizes that a purely civil breach of contract does not constitute criminal offenses without fraudulent or dishonest intention, and it should not be converted into criminal cases.

1. These Criminal Miscellaneous applications arise out of the same P.S. Case and as such, they are being heard together and disposed off by a common judgment.

2. These applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed for quashing the order dated 17.6.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Kotwali (Barari) P.S. Case No. 735 of 2007 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. Though opposite party No. 2 has already appeared through Vakalatnama and his name is appearing in daily cause list, but he has chosen not to appear before this Court at the time of hearing.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that for the same cause of action, the complainant has preferred civil remedy by filing Title Suit No. 160 of 2008 for specific performance of contract in which the Court by its final judgment passed on 30.6.2016 has clearly held that complainant (plaintiff) in the suit is not entitled for specific performance of contract in question. The court, has however, ordered for money decree of Rs.12,00,000/- along with compounding interest thereon @ 6 per cent per annum since the date of institution of the suit till the date of its recovery/realisation in favour of Complainant (plaintiff) in the suit.

6. The brief fact as appears from the written report filed by the informant is that he has entered into agreement with Ravindra Narayan Singh and money was paid for purchase of the property as mentioned in the written report for Rs.12,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft in the name of Rita Singh, wife of Ravindra Narayan Singh and daughter of Rabindra Narayan Singh namely, Dibya, as per his direction. It has further been submitted that the informant always made request with the accused persons to execute the sale deed, but they never executed the same and made further demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as Rangdari. It is alleged that last Bank Draft and Cheque of Rs.4,30,000/- was paid to the wife of the informant namely, Smt. Rita Singh on 5.4.2006.

7. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against all the accused/petitioners and on the basis of charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 17.6.2008.

8. The point for consideration in this case is whether the impugned order is valid when for the same cause of action, the informant has filed the civil suit, vide Title Suit No. 160 of 2008, for specific performance of contract.

9. From the allegation in the complaint petition, it is apparent that the informant has made grievance that even after making payment of Rs.12,00,000/-, the sale deed has not been executed by the accused persons. The informant has levelled allegation in the written report about committing breach of trust and cheating by the accused persons.

10. It is admitted position that informant has adopted civil remedy for his grievance by filing Title Suit No. 160 of 2006 for specific performance of contract which was finally disposed off by the court below on 30.6.2016. In that suit, prayer for specific performance of contract, was declined by the court in favour of the informant. The court below has however ordered the money decree for Rs.12,00,000/- along with compounding interest thereon @ 6 per cent per annum.

11. The counsel for the petitioner has specifically mentioned in paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit that Ravindra Narayan Singh has deposited the decree amount as per Judgment passed in Title Suit No. 108 of 2008 on 26.8.2016 in the court of Sub Judge-12, Bhagalpur, by a cheque payable in the name of opposite party No. 2 of the instant case, in compliance of the decree.

12. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1999, Supreme Court, 1480 (Nageshwar Pr