The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, there must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the absence of such inducement renders the complaint purely civil in nature, warranting the quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed under section 561-A CrPC (now 482) by the petitioners for quashing of the complaint, Rohit Sharma vs. Barkat Ram and others under sections 420 and 120-B RPC and the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Munsiff (Forest Magistrate), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which cognizance has been taken and process has been issued against the petitioners, primarily on the grounds that a civil dispute has given a criminal colour just to harass the petitioners.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that a complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners under sections 420 and 120-B RPC. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner No. 2 had pretended to the respondent that the land measuring 04 kanals and 01 marla comprising under khasra No. 1446 situated at village, Raipur Domana, Jammu belonged to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 who were the real brother of petitioner No. 2 and further that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the owners in possession of the above said land. The respondent along with Surinder Kumar met the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 along with petitioner No. 2 at their residence and a deal was struck between the complainant/respondent and the petitioners on 06.04.2017 at the shop of petitioner No. 2 and at that point of time, the petitioners insisted for some advance money from the respondent/complainant. The respondent asked his cousin, Surinder Kumar to give the advance money in the shape of three cheques and one cheque amounting to Rs. 1.00 lac dated 06.04.2017 was given to petitioner No. 1, another cheque of the same amount to the petitioner No. 3 and the cheque amounting to Rs.50,000/- was given to petitioner No. 2 on the same date. Thereafter the respondent's friend, Nasib Ali also wanted to invest some money in the property business and as such, the respondent who was short of financial resources agreed for the same, as almost Rs. 80 lacs was the consideration amount for the above said land that was to be paid to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 after development and sale of the plots on spot.

3. On 08.04.2017, on the insistence of the respondent, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 came to the court premises at Janipur where an agreement to sell dated 08.04.2017 was executed and registered between the respondent, his friend, Nasib Ali and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3.

4. In the said agreement to sell, it was mentioned that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the owners in possession of land measuring 4 kanals and 1 marlas falling under khasra No. 1446 situated at village, Raipur Domana and the above said land was free from all encumbrances, charges/lien etc. and it is was also mentioned in the agreement to sell that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had received Rs. 2.00 lacs as advance amount.

5. It is further stated in the complaint, that the above said land was totally vacant and possession was also delivered to the respondent along with his friend, Nasib Ali and it was agreed in the above said agreement that the complainant and the said Nasib Ali can develop the above said land into plots so as to sell the said plots to prospective buyers and it was stipulated in the said agreement that the sale deeds of the above said land shall be executed by the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 in favour of the respondent and Nasib Ali within one year and the balance payment shall be paid at the point of time when the sale deeds are executed/registered.

6. It is further stated in the complaint that on 14.04.2017, the respondent wanted to start construction work at site and as soon as the respondent brought labourers on the spot, two-three persons came on spot and told the respondent that this land belonged to them and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have no right over the above said land. The respondent was stunned and as such, approached the petitioners about the status of the above said land but they told t