Criminal prosecution cannot arise from a breach of contract; such grievances are solely civil in nature, thus warranting quashing of the FIR.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash FIR No.58/2016 dated 01.02.2016 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur (North) for the offences under Section 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC .

2. It is stated that one agreement dated 28.11.2011 was executed between Peru S/o Balia, Narayan, Gopal, Sukhram, Choti Lal, Ladu Ram all Sons of Late Shri Jeevan, Lala Ram, Budharam, Ramnath, Dalu Ram, Birdi Chand all Sons of Late Shri Chouthu, Smt. Ratni Devi W/o Late Shri Tejram, Ganesh, Seduram, Suresh, Kamal all Sons of Shri Tejram, Kalu Dattak Son of Late Shri Rampal in favour of Smt. Rekha Bansal (complainant) in order to sell 7/8 undivided share of land bearing Khasra Nos. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707, 6708, 6703 total measuring 1.02 hectare and Khasra Nos. 6718 & 3238 total measuring 0.14 hectare situated at Village Amer (Chopra Ki Dhani), Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

3. As per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 28.11.2011, entire family tree as well as particulars of different Khatedars as well as their descendants were given in detail and it was agreed between the parties that the land shall be sold for consideration or Rs.45,50,000/- per bigah. As per petitioners, total sale consideration as per the agreement was Rs.2,45,00,000/-. Out of such sale consideration decided between the parties, Rs.33,00,000/- was given in advance and the remaining was to be paid before 28th April, 2012. As per the petitioners, when the proposed purchasers/complainant did not make payment of remaining sale consideration, one legal notice dated 18.12.2015 was issued by petitioner No.1 through his counsel mentioning therein that the terms and conditions where agreement dated 28.11.2011 has been violated by the complainant and the remaining sale consideration has not been paid, therefore, in view of the fact that time was essence of the agreement, on account of non-payment of remaining sale consideration, agreement dated 28.11.2011 has been terminated. Reply to the notice was also given by the complainant and thereafter, in retaliation of the cancellation of agreement, impugned FIR No.58/2016 was lodged by the complainant on 01.02.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that bare perusal of the contents of FIR would not reveal essential ingredients which are sufficient to infer commission of any offence under Section 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC . It is submitted that part of the sale consideration, which was accepted by the petitioners cannot be said to be an entrustment by the complainant with the petitioners, nor are there allegations that right from the inception, the agreement was executed with dishonest intention by inducing the complainant to enter into agreement so as to cause was undue loss to the complainant and undue gain to the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the best, the complainant can claim breach of contract, for which he has got remedies in civil law and the dispute cannot be criminalized only on account of the fact that the agreement has been cancelled.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that most of the persons, who executed agreement dated 28.11.2011 have sold their respective share in the land by way of executing sale deed in favour of the complainant but it was not done dishonestly by the petitioners, therefore, it is clear that cheating has been done in the instant case. It is further submitted that the share of the petitioners was not clear