Point of Law: Offence of cheating - Quash of criminal complaint - There is no fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person induced to deliver any property to any person again same is not the case her – Court not find that there is material to support allegation that present petitioner had acted in connivance with accused No.1.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri J.M. Panchal with Shri K.J. Panchal, learned Advocate for the applicant and learned Advocate Shri Nisarg Shah for learned Advocate Shri N.M. Kapadia for the respondent No.2 - original complainant and learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent No.1 - State.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behlaf of the respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Shri Nisarg Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the criminal complaint being C.R. I No.18 of 2015 registered with Viramgam Police Station, Dist. Ahmedbad Rural, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:

4.1 Criminal complaint bearing C.R. I No.18 of 2015 came to be registered with Viramgam Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad Rural by respondent No.2 - original complainant - Shitalbhai Subodhchandra Shah inter alia alleging that he had purchased a land bearing Survey No. 534 situated at village: Asal admeasuring 25485 Sq. Mtrs. from accused No.1 Rekhaben Shantilal Vadlani vide registered sale deed No.2109/2007 dated 06.08.2007 by paying consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. It is alleged in the complaint that since the land had been mortgaged to one Jay Yogeshwar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. by accused No.1 and since the land was of restricted tenure therefore the name of the petitioner was not mutated in the revenue records and whereas the accused No.1 and her husband had undertaken to do the needful to have mortgage redeemed and to get the land converted into old / unrestricted tenure. It is alleged that taking disadvantage of the situation, the accused No.1 had executed second registered sale deed with the present petitioner on 11.05.2010. That when the complainant had made an application to have his name mutated in the revenue records, a pencil entry No.2511 dated 05.08.2011 had been entered into the revenue records and accused No.1 had objected to the same and therefore, RTS Case No.211 of 2011 came to be registered and vide order dated 24.10.2011 entry in favour of the complainant came to be rejected and therefore, the complainant has appealed against the same to the Deputy Collector. It is stated that later on the accused No.1 had also created a charge over the land in question by taking loan of Rs.10 Lakhs from the Jay Yogeshwar Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. and entry 2288 dated 11.06.2010 with regard to the same, had also been mutated in the revenue records. It would be pertinent to mention that while allegation against the accused No.1 are of selling the land to the original complainant herein inspite of having sold the land to the original complainant and also of having availed loan over the said land after sale with the complainant, the allegations against the present petitioner in the complaint are that he did not exercise due diligence for ascertaining the title of the property before entering into a sale deed with the complainant.

5. Learned Advocate Shri Panchal for the petitioner submits that there are no allegations in the complaint which support the allegation of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 read with Section 114 of IPC against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession, having sound reputation and that there is no allegation against the applicant having been involved in any criminal case herein before that the only allegation which could levelled against the applicant was not exercising due care and caution before purchasing the land in question. He further submits that as such as soon as the petitioner came to know about the complainant having entered into an earlier sale deed and having later sold the said land to the petitioner, he had immediately executed an agreement dated 10.06.2011, whereby earlier sale deed dated 1