The main legal point established is that the presence of dishonest intention at the time of inducement is crucial for the offence of cheating, and a commercial transaction or contractual dispute may also give rise to a criminal offence.

P.S. Teji, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of charge sheet filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi under Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC in Criminal Case No. 3095/2/2014 arising out of FIR No. 27/2014, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Sarita Vihar and for quashing of order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the learned MM taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No.2/complainant-Splendor Landbase Ltd. got lodged the FIR in question against the petitioner Sanjay Kaushish and his son Karan Kaushish with the allegations that both the accused persons approached the complainant company in January, 2013 and offered to sell plots of land bearing Nos.8601 to 8630 admeasuring 5444 sq. yards situated at Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi which was commonly known as ‘Shiela Cinema Complex’. Accused Sanjay Kaushish represented himself to be an absolute owner and in possession of the said property; it was claimed that the said property was free from any claim; he had applied for getting the said property converted from leasehold to freehold and he would get the plan of the property approved from the authority concerned. The complainant agreed to purchase and re-develop the said property and had paid Rs.5 crores to accused Sanjay Kaushish by way of cheques along with a brief term sheet vide cover letter dated 15.01.2013 which was accepted by accused Karan Kaushish. It was further agreed that the complainant company shall pay a sum of Rs.10 crores to the accused persons upon their handing over physical possession of the freehold property. It was further agreed that in case accused persons fail to get the property converted to freehold within two months, they shall return Rs.5 crores along with interest @ 3% per month and additional Rs.5 crores as compensation/damages. It was further alleged that the accused persons defaulted in getting the property converted to freehold. They handed over three cheques of Rs.50 lacs each and four cheques of Rs.1 crore each. The cheques of Rs.50 lacs each were encashed when presented for payment. The complainant company deposited three cheques of Rs.1 crore each, but the same were dishonoured. Thereafter, a notice dated 23.10.2013 was issued to the accused persons and in reply dated 07.11.2013, it was claimed that the accused persons were not the absolute owner of the said property. It was also claimed by the accused persons that the cheques were not issued towards any obligation to repay any debt/liability. Vide letter dated 10.12.2013, accused persons agreed that they were ready to pay Rs.3 crores to the complainant towards full and final settlement of all claims.

3. On the basis of the complaint made to the police, the FIR in question was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. Vide order dated 25.07.2014, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioners under Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the filing of the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the same.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 is the co-sharer in the property in question along with his brother and other family members. A partition suit was filed which is pending adjudication. On 24.03.2009, a preliminary decree was passed by this Court declaring 1/3rd equal and undivided share of the petitioner no.1 along with co-sharers in the property. It was also directed to get the property converted from leasehold to freehold. Vide order dated 18.11.2011, parties were allowed to get the property valued. The property was valued for Rs.90 crores. Vide order dated 06.11.2012, petitioner no.1 was d