IMPORTANT POINT
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 385, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner No.1 is the brother of the complainant and the petitioner No.2 is the son of the petitioner No.1. There has not been any partition in the joint family of the petitioner No.1 and the complainant. The petitioner No.1 as Karta of the joint family property, has executed a sale-deed in respect of the joint family property claiming that the property sold is his own property and the petitioner No.1 is also claiming that there has been partition in the joint family property. It is also alleged that the petitioner No.1 executed a sale-deed in favour of the complainant in respect of one of the joint family properties consequent upon a memorandum of understanding signed between the parties claiming that the property in question is free from any encumbrance. After execution of the sale-deed, the complainant has got the said property mutated in his name and is enjoying the same but the petitioner No.1 has set up one Shiv Kumar Khemka to file a title suit by which Shiv Kumar Khemka claims to be the purchaser of the property in question from the petitioner No.1, before the same was purchased by the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420, 385, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issue of summons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly a series of civil litigation in shape of several title suits and partition suit are pending between the parties and this admitted facts shows that this criminal case has been filed only to exert pressure on the petitioner to succumb to the illegal blackmailing and demands of the complainant. It is next submitted that the land in question was purchased by M/s Foundry Fuel Product Limited in the year 1986 by a registered sale-deed. At the relevant time, both the petitioner No.1 and the complainant were the shareholders of the same and not the Directors. The petitioner No.1 later on became the Director of the M/s Foundry Fuel Product Limited and after duly authorized by the Board of Directors, has sold and transferred the land relating to the office premises in question to the complainant and the complainant was well aware about the fact that there is a claim of title by the co-accused Shiv Kumar Khemka but without resolving the claim of Shiv Kumar Khemka, on the insistence of the complainant, the petitioner transferred the said premises. It is next submitted that the concerned sale-deed dated 29.04.1986 has never been challenged or questioned in any competent court of law and the petitioner No.1 was having title at the time of transferring the same to the complainant by the sale deed dated 29.04.1986. Though the petitioner No.1 executed the sale-deed in capacity of the Director of the company but the company has not been made an accused. It is then submitted that the title in respect of land in question is to be decided by the competent civil court and merely because Shiv Kumar Khemka has raised a claim, it cannot be said that the petitioner No.1 did not have any title on the date of execution of the sale-deed in favour of the complain