The judgment establishes the principle that in cases involving allegations of cheating and fraudulent intention, there must be prima facie evidence to establish criminality, and the court must distinguish between civil disputes and criminal offenses.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ram Krishna Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution including the FIR, being Adityapur P.S. Case No. 207 of 2018 and subsequently by order dated 16.08.2021, passed in I.A. No. 3239 of 2021, cognizance order dated 20.05.2020 has been allowed to be challenged by way of allowing the amendment petition. Accordingly the order taking cognizance dated 20.05.2020 is also under challenge, in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 207 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 322 of 2020, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

3. The O.P. No. 2 has filed the complaint before the police, alleging therein that she is working in a consultancy company. In the order of hierarchy of children of Sri Brahmdeo Sharma, she is the third daughter and the petitioner No. 1 is eldest daughter and having one brother namely Diwakar Sharma.

It is alleged that the petitioners stay in America and in the year 2014 as per the proposal given by the petitioners, the informant / O.P. No. 2 has deposited Rs. 15 lacs in the account of the petitioner No. 1. Later on, on 27.05.2018, when she returned from America to see her mother then she came to know that the Flat, in which, her father and mother were staying was not in the name of her parents rather in the name of petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 in connivance with the Builder had taken ownership in her favour and became the owner of the said Flat in the year 2014 itself.

It is further alleged that at the time of purchasing the said flat, the informant was told by the petitioners that the said flat will be purchased in the name of both the sisters i.e. the informant and the petitioner No. 1, in which, their parents will stay till their lifetime. When the informant contacted the petitioner No. 1 and asked about the ownership of the flat, then the petitioner No. 1 abused her and thrown her and her parents from the flat and threatened her to vacate the said flat. Then the informant said that as per the agreement, both i.e. the informant / O.P. no. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 have spent money and their father has given Rs. 12 lacs for purchasing furniture. Their father has also given Rs. 16 lacs after selling a house to the petitioner.

It is also alleged that when the informant started claiming her ownership in the said flat then on 31.5.2018 the petitioner No. 1 came from America and started abusing and assaulted her and on 19.6.2018 the petitioner No. 1 again abused her and her parents and started giving threatening. She was pushed by the petitioner No. 1 due to which she fell down on the ground and sustained injury on her shoulder for which she was treated at Steel City Nursing Home.

It is further alleged that thereafter the petitioners continuously given threatening. The informant has lost their job due to fracture in hand.

The informant has further alleged that the petitioners having bad intention of grabbing the said flat has cheated her, for which, the present FIR has been lodged against the petitioners.

4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the husband and wife and allegation with respect to abusing and assaulting the O.P. No. 2 and her parents are absolutely false. He submitted that petitioner No. 1 and the informant-O.P. No. 2 are own sisters and the petitioners have not cheated in any manner whatsoever. He submitted that the O.P. No. 2 for the purpose of grabbing the flat being Flat No. 501, Haven Palace, situated at Adityapur knowing fully well that the said flat is exclusively purchased by the petitioner No. 1 and she has purchased the said flat in the year 2011 in the name of her husband i.e. petitioner No. 2, which had been booked for their residen