The central legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings should not be used as a shortcut for civil disputes, and the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of inducement for the offence of cheating.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties.

2. Present is an application for quashing the First Information Report of Mohania P.S. Case No. 348 of 2018 registered on 13.06.2018 under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was lodged by opposite party No. 2, against the petitioner and other persons.

3. The prosecution case in brief, that one Manju Bala Rastogi filed a Complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua on 02.06.2018 stating thereof that she married with one Dinesh Chandra Rastogi and residing at Merath. Accused/petitioner is own brother and a jealous person, who want to cause a loss of her property, by way of impersonation, where accused/petitioner actively participated to execute a sale deed No. 664 dated 03.02.2018 for Plot No. 31 area 1.40 decimal in favour of one Kashmira Devi/accused No. 1, with the help of deed writer, where petitioner himself stand as a witness.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that aforesaid complaint case which has been registered as Complaint Case No. 686 of 2018, was forwarded to Mohania police station for registration and institution of F.I.R., consequent upon Mohania P.S. Case No. 348 of 2018 was registered under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that complainant/informant is the own sister of accused/petitioner, where present F.I.R. has been lodged with an ulterior motive purely for private and personal grudge, as informant did not want to returned back the cash received from petitioner through various bank transactions on different occasions as sister. It is also submitted that false implications in present criminal case further get its strength as informant filed a Civil Suit bearing case no. 571 of 2018 dated 02.06.2018, on the same day, on which the present complaint was lodged, regarding same property, only to create a pressure through implication in criminal prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that no case is made out under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as allegation failed to satisfy its essential ingredients. It is submitted that complaint was lodged after four months of alleged execution of sale deed.

5. In support of submission, learned counsel relied upon the report of Hon. Apex Court as reported in the matter of Uma Shankar Gopalika Versus State of Bihar and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 336. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of para-6 of the said judgment for the sake of Convenience.

“…..........It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code”.

6. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another [(2005) 1 SCC 122] [: 2005 (1) PLJR (SC) 95] :

“…...........It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto”.

7. It is submitted that in present alleged transaction,