Disputes over repayment of money in family arrangements are civil matters and do not constitute criminal offences under IPC sections regarding cheating and deception.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, Berhampur, Berhampur in 1CC Case No.286 of 2020 arising out of 1CC Case No.388 of 2019 corresponding to GR Case No.1779 of 2019 wherein the learned court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 417 /420/34 of the IPC implicating them.

2. The background facts of the case are that the Informant- Opposite Party No.2, namely Pravash Chandra Mohanty, lodged a written report before Baidyanathpur Police Station, Berhampur, which was registered as Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.264 of 2019 under Section 294 /341/325/500/354/417/420/506/34 of the IPC. Upon registration of the said FIR, investigation was taken up by the police. However, the investigating agency, having found no substance in the allegations, submitted the Final Report attributing the accusations to be based on mistake of fact.

Subsequently, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint petition, which was registered as I.C.C. Case No.286 of 2020. The learned court, upon observing the formalities as required under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved by the order of cognizance, the Petitioners have preferred the present petition challenging the same.

The Petitioners contend that the impugned order is unsustainable, inter alia, because the Complainant is the elder brother of Petitioner No.1; Petitioner No.2 is his wife; and Petitioner No.3 is a relative of Petitioner No.1. The allegations arise out of a family arrangement wherein Petitioner No.1 is said to have requested the Complainant to purchase a plot of land at Nigam Nagar, under Ankuli Mouza, Berhampur, in the name of his wife (Petitioner No.2), with an assurance that the excess amount spent would be refunded upon his return from work. Acting on this, the Complainant allegedly spent Rs.1,05,000/- towards execution of Sale Deed No.1154 of 2002 in favour of Petitioner No.2.

It is further alleged that when the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 approached Petitioner No.1 for refund of the said amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, Petitioner No.1 avoided repayment. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1 is said to have suggested that the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 sell the said property to a suitable purchaser so that the proceeds of sale could be adjusted towards the alleged dues.

Accordingly, the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 arranged one Manoj Kumar Sahu as a prospective purchaser for the said land covered under RSD No.1154 of 2002, for a total consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-.

In May 2019, the Informant–Opposite Party No.2 allegedly received an advance of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the proposed sale and handed over possession of the land to the prospective purchaser, who even began construction by laying the foundation. It is then alleged that Petitioner No.1, without informing the Informant, asked Petitioner No.3 to find another buyer. Acting on this, Petitioner No.3 approached the Informant, who, on 28.05.2019, paid him Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque). Petitioner No.1 is further stated to have taken an additional Rs.50,000/- from the Informant. Petitioner No.3 is alleged to have assured that the Sale Deed would be executed by 31.05.2019 in favour of an appropriate purchaser. However, on 10.06.2019, Petitioner No.1 purportedly sent a WhatsApp message directing the Informant not to sell the land to Manoj Kumar Sahu for less than Rs.13,00,000/-, the original consideration. By then, the Informant had already accepted advance money from said purchaser, who allegedly created an unpleasant situation and subjected him to physical and mental harassment.

It is furth