The distinction between breach of contract and criminal cheating requires proof of fraudulent intent at the transaction's inception.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banpur (in short “JMFC”) in G.R. Case No.58 of 2019 arising out of Banpur Police Station Case No.42 of 2019, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section s 420 , 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).

This case has been filed in this Court on 25.06.2024 and numbered on 07.05.2024 by which time accused statement had already been recorded. Interim order granted on 07.08.2024 permitting the petitioner to pray for an adjournment in the trial Court has been vacated on 11.03.2025.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The allegation in brief as per the First Information Report (in short “FIR”) is that the informant had paid Rs.3,80,000/- to the accused for the purchase of a generator. He had promised to repay the same within a month. But as he did not return the amount, there was a settlement with the mediation of Banpur Police on 14.06.2017 and the accused promised to execute a registered sale deed at the Banpur Registration Office. He did not do so but abused the informant in obscene languages and threatened him, for which the informant lodged the FIR against him.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. Pratap Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are completely false and fabricated and no document has been produced in support of the allegation that the informant had given any money to the petitioner for purchase of generator. He submitted that even accepting the allegations against the petitioner to be true, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. Even if it is found that a loan had been given to the petitioner and he failed to repay it, it would be a civil dispute. He also submitted that six witnesses including the informant have been examined in the trial, but their evidence does not make out the offences under Section s 420 , 294, 506 of IPC against the petitioner. Their depositions which have been annexed to this CRLMC and may at best make out a civil dispute. He finally submitted that false allegations have been made against him so as to make out the offence under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC against him. He has relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions:-

i) Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs. State of Goa & Others reported in AIR 2025 SC 361

ii) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anther reported in AIR 2024 SC 4531

iii) M/s. Medchl Chemicals and PharmaPvt. Ltd., vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1869

4. Mr. Bharat Bhusan Routray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the order dated 03.06.2019 has been challenged taking cognizance of the offence under section 420 IPC along with other offences but in the meanwhile, the trial has progressed and accused statement has been recorded on 16.03.2024. He further submits that the case is now posted for argument in the learned trial Court.

5. Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that as the evidence of witnesses have already been recorded in the trial, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of cognizance which has been passed almost six years ago.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs. State of Goa & Others, reported in AIR 2025 SC 361, it is held as follows:-

“12. It is pertinent to note that the purchasers under the sale deeds have not made any grievance about the sale deeds. In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v State of Bihar, in paragraphs 20 to 23, this Court held thus:

“20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of owner