A pure and simple breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating.

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.18 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent, registered for the offence under Section 406 and 420 r/w 506(i) IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent has entered into a sale agreement on 21.03.2012 with the petitioners for purchasing a property for the total sale consideration at Rs. 17,25,000/-. According to the defacto complainant, he paid a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as advance to the petitioners. In the said sale agreement, the time for execution of sale is specifically mentioned as three months. Even though the second respondent is ready and willing execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioners did not come forward to do so. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, the petitioners have threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no offence made out to take cognizance as against the petitioners. Even as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have entered into the sale agreement with the defacto complainant in which, they have received a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as an advance. Thereafter, the defacto complainant also issued notice calling upon the petitioners to perform their part of contract as agreed by them as per the terms of the agreement dated 21.03.2012. Therefore, the entire issue is civil in nature and the defacto complainant is trying to give criminal color and foisted a false case as against the petitioners herein with mala fide intention in order to harass the petitioners with ulterior motive.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the defacto complainant ought to have filed a suit for specific performance and without filing the same, the present false case has been foisted. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the First Information Report.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that even after receipt of notice, which is issued by the defacto complainant, the petitioners did not come forward to execute the sale deed as agreed by them. It is a clear case of cheating and only with dishonored intention, after receipt of the advance amount, the petitioners refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequence. Therefore, all the offences are clearly made out and the first respondent rightly registered the case. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the First Information Report cannot be quashed at its threshold and investigation has to be completed in a full fledged manner. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners and the de facto complainant have entered into a sale agreement on 21.03.2012 for selling the property for a sale consideration of Rs. 17,25,000/-. The petitioners also received a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as advance amount to sale the said property. Thereafter, the defacto complainant also issued notice call upon the petitioners to perform their part of the contract as agreed by them. In the said notice, they stated that the petitioners have received a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as advance on various dates. In the complaint, the defacto complainant stated that the petitioners received a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as an advance amount. However, this is a clearly a civil case and the defacto complainant ought to have file a suit for execution of sale deed as per the sale agreement dated 21.03.2012.

8. Under these circumstances, whether the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC would attract as against the petitioners or not. For the sake of convenience, Section 415 of Indian Penal