Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception and entrustment.

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, 1973 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Birsanagar P.S. Case No.89 of 2023 in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and basing upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the said offences and has taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 16.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and the trial is yet to begin.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, suppressing the material fact that they are the owners of a land which is governed by the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, offered to sell the land to the informant and from the informant received Rs.1,50,000/- in cash and cheques of Rs.6,40,000/- which have not yet been encashed and the validity period of the cheques is already over.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court towards page-47 of the brief which is the admitted agreement entered into between the parties wherein in clause 8 it has categorically been mentioned that the seller shall not file any case or proceeding in any court or office under the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act which indicates that the informant was very much aware that the land which was proposed to be sold by the petitioners, is governed by provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. It is next submitted that at the time of bail being granted to the petitioners, the petitioners have already paid Rs.1,50,000/-to the informant, which they received in cash from the informant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant/ respondent No.2 was required to show that the appellant had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation of not fulfilling the agreement for sale of the said property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code will not be made out. It is further submitted that in that case, it has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is trite law that every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence unless there is evidence of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken note of the unfortunate common practice for the police officer to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an F.I.R. for offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating; on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgmen