The absence of fraudulent intention at the inception of a transaction negates the offence of cheating, and civil disputes should not be converted into criminal prosecutions.

JUDGEMENT

1. By this common judgment, the afore titled two petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging FIR No. 28 of 2003, for offences under section 420, 506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Kakapora Pulwama, are proposed to be disposed of.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petitions are that an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C came to be filed by the private respondents against the petitioners and one Zahoor Ahmad Bhat before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama. In the said application, it was alleged that a deal was struck between the parties with respect to landed estate measuring 12 kanals and 02 marlas situated at Lasjan on the right side of the Bypass. It was further alleged in the application that the private respondents have transferred a sum of Rs. 1.03 crores to the petitioners and they have also issued cheques wroth Rs. 60,00,000/- which have not been encashed by them but are in possession of the petitioners through one of their close aide Shri Nisar Ahmed Mir. It was alleged that petitioner Haroon Rashid Lone even approached the Patwari concerned for issuance of revenue extracts with regard to the land in question so that the same could be handed over to the private respondents. In the application, it was alleged that greed has prevailed upon the petitioners and now they are retracting from their commitment, thereby cheating the private respondents. It was also alleged that the petitioners are threatening the private respondents and that they are being blackmailed. It was further alleged that the petitioners are demanding a further sum of Rs. 60,00,000/-. In the application, it was also alleged that the petitioners are cheaters and that they are threatening the private respondents with an aim to get enhanced price of the land in question, though they have already entered into transaction with the private respondents.

3. After considering the aforesaid allegations made in the application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, passed order dated 04.04.2023, directing SSP Pulwama to conduct an investigation in the matter under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C in the light of the contents contained in the application and to report the matter within three days. Accordingly, the impugned FIR came to be registered by the police against the petitioners.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR by stating that the land in question is owned and possessed by petitioner Mohammad Mansoor Lone who is working as doctor at King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital, Saudi Arabia. It has been contended that the contents of the impugned FIR clearly show that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature with no criminality attached to it. It has been further submitted that the private respondents have already filed a civil suit on the same set of allegations before the Court of Principal District Judge, Pulwama, which is indicative of the fact that the dispute between parties is essentially of civil nature but the same has been given a criminal colour by the private respondents. It has been further contended that neither any date nor the particulars of the alleged threats are mentioned in the impugned FIR, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

5. On facts, the petitioners have submitted that the owner of the land in question, petitioner Mohammad Mansoor Lone, has not executed any agreement to sell with the private respondents nor has he authorised Shri Zahoor Ahmad to execute any agreement on his behalf in respect of the land in question.

6. The private respondents have not filed any reply to the petition. However, they have filed an application for placing our record Bank receipts depicting transfer of amount in the account of petitioner Mohammad Mansoor Lone. Along with the application, the private respondents have placed one record the photocopies of pay-in-slips and screen shots of online bank transactions.

7. Response to the afo