The court held that misrepresentation in a land sale transaction constituted cheating under Section 318(4) of BNS, and the FIR could not be quashed as it disclosed a cognizable offence.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 144 of 2024, dated 18.11.2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), registered at Police Station Paddar, District Mandi H.P. and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No. 2, the informant, made a complaint to the police asserting that he received a call from Prem Chand on 27.09.2024 for lending money to purchase the land. The informant declined by saying that he also intended to purchase the land. Prem Chand said that the accused had some land available with him. The informant talked to the accused, who said that he had land measuring 12 Biswas for sale at Jail Road, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., however, the land was mortgaged to State Bank of India, Mandi. The accused said that he had reached an agreement with the Branch Manager and an amount of Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs) was to be paid to the bank. Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) was to be paid to the owner. He also said that he had only Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs) in his account and needed Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) so that Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs) could be deposited in the bank, otherwise the property was to be put an auction. The accused also shared the videos of the land with the informant. The informant discussed the matter with Prem Chand, who also confirmed that the accused was working in A.G. Office Shimla. The informant paid Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) to the accused through a cheque. The informant asked the accused to get the land transferred. The accused delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The accused called the informant on 09.10.2024 and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) from the informant. The informant transferred Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) but no sale deed was executed. The informant demanded money and the accused issued a cheque for the return of the money, however, the informant insisted upon the execution of the sale deed. The informant went to the spot and found that there was no land. The informant presented its cheque before the bank but the cheque was dishonoured. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the F.I.R., the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner/accused is the owner of the land.He had not entered into any agreement with the informant. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature. The proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act are pending between the parties. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. as well as consequential proceedings be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent-State by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability, the petition having been filed with some ulterior purpose. The contents of the petition were denied on merits except to the extent of registration of the F.I.R. It was asserted that an application was filed before the Revenue Department to obtain the record of the land shown to the informant by the accused. As per revenue record, Khasra No. 681 is in possession of Amar Singh and is owned by the State of H.P. The police conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. The accused committed the offence not only against the petitioner but against the society. The informant had transferred a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh) through RTGS and deposited Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in cash. The accused issued a cheque to the informant, which was dishonoured. The learned Trial Court is seized of the matter and this Court should not exercise the jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition