The Court reiterated that quashing of FIRs should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing that suppression of material facts by the petitioner warranted the dismissal of the petition.

ORDER :

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 103 of 2014 registered with Umargaon Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. The facts and allegations leveled in the complaint, leading to the present petition, in a nut shell are to the effect that on 07.10.2014, the present respondent no. 2 original complainant lodged a written complaint before Umargaon Police Station inter-alia alleging that as such the complainant was in need of land for building a house, she came to know about the land bearing Survey No. 102/paiki 2 of Mauje: Gheemsakankariya, Taluka Umargaon, District: Valsad, which was under the joint ownership / possession of Sudhirbhai Dattatre Ganu, Vijaybhai Dattatre Ganu, Jayantiben Dattatre Ganu and Supriya Sudhirbhai Ganu and the husband of the petitioner agreed to sell the land of his share.

2.1 It is further narrated in the impugned complaint that accordingly, the present respondent no. 2 approached the petitioner' husband for purchasing 2 Gunthas of the said land for consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and resultantly the said agricultural land was alleged to have been purchased by the present respondent no. 2.

2.2 The complainant further alleges in the impugned complaint that as such husband of the present petitioner viz. Vijaybhai Dattatre Ganu expired around 1 year back, the present petitioner had sold the said land to one Abdul Majeed Memon though it was very well in the knowledge of the present petitioner that her late husband had sold the said land to the complainant and the present petitioner had also signed upon the said agreement to sale and thus it is alleged that the present petitioner had committed the offence of cheating and breach of trust.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Nasir Saiyed for the petitioner, seeking quashment of the questioned FIR would submit that it is a simple transaction of selling and purchasing land where according to the FIR, the complaint has paid Rs.80,000/- towards the purchase of two guntha of land in the year 2006. However, since no registered sale deed was executed, the complainant filed questioned FIR under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. He would further submit that simple civil transaction has been given colour of criminality and therefore, the same cannot be allowed to convert into FIR and therefore, learned advocate Mr. Saiyed submits that the petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR be quashed. He would further submit that plain reading of the FIR demosntrates essential ingredients of offence under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC i.e. Criminal breach of trust and cheating. He would further submit that in order to establish criminal breach of trust and cheating, the complainant prima facie is required to establish that it was an intention since the inception of the transaction, however, in the present case, no such intention either averred or established prima facie from bare reading of the FIR.

3.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Saiyed prays to allow this petition and to quash the impugned FIR.

4. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent would submit that the petitioner has suppressed material fact. He would further submit that identical FIR was lodged against the petitioner being I - C.R. No.104 of 2014 before Umargaon Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. He would further submit that against FIR being I