The FIR was quashed as it lacked essential elements of criminal breach of trust and cheating, being merely a misuse of criminal process to enforce a contractual obligation.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 144 of 2014 registered with Anjar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 That criminal complaint being I-Cr. No. 144/14 (originally stated in the complaint as 144/13) had been filed with the Anjar Police Station for offences punishable under Section 406 , 420 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE dated 05.05.2014. The period when the offence had been committed is shown as from 19.08.2013 till date. The petitioners state that complainant respondent No. 2 alleges in the complaint that he is residing at the address given in the cause title and he was interested in purchasing land bearing survey No. 86/1/paiki 2 admeasuring 810 sq. mtrs located at Anjar (in short “land in dispute”) which was of the ownership of the present petitioners and he had entered into an agreement to sale in that regard on 19.08.2013 and the petitioners had voluntarily accepted the token amount for signing the said agreement to sale (Sata Karar). It is further stated in the complaint that thereafter applicant No.6 had ensured sale of Plot Nos. 680 and 681 as per the terms of agreement to sale located at Ramkrishna Mahavirnagar and having accepted the consideration for the same and he had signed as wherein in the sale deed with regard to the said land and complainant Nos. 1 and 6 had taken amount of Rs.31,56,200/- various dates and the complainant was regularly requesting the said petitioners to fulfil the applicant's obligation of completing the sale deed in favour of the complainant and the complainant since he belong to the same community since the petitioners had allegedly asked friends and relatives of the community to intervene but since it appears that the petitioners were passing time, the complainant had got a legal notice issued through his Advocate on 25.02.2014 in response to which the petitioners had replied through legal notice confirming the complainant that since the time period as stated in the agreement to sale, all 6 months had expired, therefore agreement had got cancelled on its own. Thus it was alleged that the petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust and cheating alleging the impugned complaints been filed against the present petitioners.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that issue of civil nature has been given colour of criminality to pressurize the petitioners. He would further submit that as per the FIR, agreement to sell qua land in dispute was executed on 19.8.2013 at a sale consideration of Rs.60 lakh, out of which, according to the FIR, Rs.31,56,200/- has been paid by the complainant to the petitioner, but later on, since the petitioners have not executed the sale deed pursuant to the specific performance of the agreement to sell, the impugned FIR is filed, which is completely misuse of process. He would further submit that in order to attract the present offence, initiation of the accused to commit criminal breach of trust must be from the inception and in the present case, there is no criminal breach of trust, as the petitioners have not entrusted any property to any person. He would further submit that the complainant has also filed Special Civil Suit No.17 of 2015 before the competent civil Court for relief of specific performance, which is subject matter of the FIR and therefore, essential ingredients of the offence u/s 406 and 420 are missing. Upon such submission, he prays to allow the petition.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent original complainant after arguing to some extent, failed to point out that how the offe