Mere non-compliance with a contractual obligation does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust in the absence of a dishonest intention at the time of entering into the contract.

Deepak Maheshwari, J.

Accused-petitioner Rambabu Sharma has filed this criminal misc. petition for quashing the FIR No. 449/2016 registered at PS Kanota, Jaipur East for the offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC.

2. Facts in brief are that complainant Ramavtar Meena filed a complaint before learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No. 24, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan stating therein that there were two shops with basements situated at Dayarampura, Tehsil Bassi, Agra Road, Jaipur owned by accused Rambabu Sharma. He was in need of money for domestic requirement and the complainant was need of said shops alongwith basement, so an agreement was entered between the parties on 01.02.2016 regarding sale of the said shops alongwith basement for a sum of Rs. 21 lacs. Out of that amount, Rs. 20 lacs were paid on 01.02.2016 by the complainant to Rambabu Sharma with the promise to pay the rest amount of Rs. 1 lac on 01.05.2016 and to get the sale deed executed. But later on, when he went to pay the rest amount of Rs. 1 lac on 01.05.2016, Rambabu refused to take the money and get the ale deed executed and did not honour the agreement, thus he has cheated the complainant. On the basis of this complaint, FIR No. 449/2016 came to be registered for the offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the bare perusal of FIR, no offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust is made out. The matter is essentially a dispute in civil nature, even if, the facts mentioned in the complaint are taken on the face value. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the agreement to sale (Annex.2) shows that the blank stamp papers have been manipulated and misused to create a false agreement to sale. In fact, the signatures of accused-petitioner were obtained on the blank stamp papers by the complainant when he obtained loan of Rs. 1 lac from him. Those blank signed stamp papers have been misused to create this sale agreement. Learned counsel submits that it is highly improbable that when a substantial sum of Rs. 20 lacs is paid out of the sale consideration of Rs. 21 lacs, a period of three months may be sought to get the sale deed executed for a mere sum of Rs. 1 lac only. He further submits that despite the notice was allegedly served by the complainant on 24.06.2016 to seek the execution of sale deed, no civil suit seeking specific performance of agreement was ever filed by the complainant pursuant to the said notice. This also clearly indicates about the falsity of the said sale deed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on following judgments in support of his prayer :-

I. ALPIC Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan & Anr., reported in (2001) 3 SCC 513

II. Veer Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in 2007 AIAR (Criminal) 578

III. All Cargo Movers (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Anr., reported in (2007) 14 SCC 776

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant respondent submits that right from inception when the sale agreement was executed by the accused-petitioner on 01.02.2016, he was having dishonest intention to cheat the complainant and to commit criminal breach of trust. Pursuant to such criminal intent, he deceitfully obtained Rs. 20 lacs from the complainant and thereafter refused to get the sale deed executed. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has also concluded that the offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC is established against the accused-petitioner. He further submits that in so far as the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are concerned, the factual aspect of the matter may be taken into consideration.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report received from SHO, PS Kanota, Jaipur East, whereby the investigating officer has stated that the offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC is established against the accused-petitioner.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned co