Criminal charges for cheating require proof of fraudulent intent at the transaction's inception; mere civil disputes do not suffice for criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This application under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 has been filed for quashing of charge-sheet No.105/2024 dated 28.11.2024, under Section 420 /406 of the Indian Penal Code and all further proceedings in connection with GR case number 791 of 2023 arising out of jora Bagan Police Station number 70/2023 dated 29.7.2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 18th Court at Calcutta.

2. The proceeding initiated on the basis of FIR lodged by the de-facto complainant under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta alleging that by suppressing an order of status quo, the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant and thereby received a consideration money of Rs. 80 lakhs towards transfer of a property situated at 7, Mullen Street, Kolkata 700020. It was further alleged that the father of the petitioner Provash Chandra Shyam had gifted the property as described above by virtue of registered deed of gift dated February 24, 2020 and the purpose of executing such deed of gift was to meet the financial expenses for the prolong cancer treatment of the petitioner and further due to series of incident he felt that his elder daughter Sharbani Nandi and her family members were ruining and misappropriating family assets for their unlawful gain.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after demise of her father, the elder sister, filed a partition suit along with a prayer for injunction and by an order dated 4th December, 2020, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 7th Court at Alipore, passed an order of status quo restraining the petitioner and her mother from transferring or creating any third-party interest over the properties as described above. It is her further case that due to ignorance, she was unaware about the fact of such order of status-quo passed by the learned court was also effective for the Mullen Street property and as such she was under the impression that such order of injunction was applicable for the properties, situated at 9, lower Rowden Street, Bata Nagar, and as regards a Tea Estate at Jalpaiguri. That apart her health was deteriorating and she required urgent funds for her cancer treatment so she approached the opposite party No.2, who offered to purchase the petitioner’s property at Mullen street at a total consideration of Rs. 1,60 crore. Accordingly, a Memorandum of understanding was entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 on January 26, 2022 pursuant to which the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the petitioner and thereafter on the date of executing agreement for sale on 4 March 2022, paid a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs to her. The petitioner never parted with possession of the said property, though the agreement was executed on 4th May, 2022.

4. The complainant alleged to have received a notice in connection with T.S number 484/20 22 filed by her eldest sister where from opposite party no. 2 came to learn about the third-party interest created by the petitioner in violation of an order of injunction passed by the civil court in T.S number 300 of 2020. The petitioner in the said case after entering appearance filed an application for rejection of plaint in the said suit and by an order dated 8th August, 202 the Learned Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court at Alipore rejected the app