The intention to cheat must exist at the very inception for a breach of contract to amount to cheating. Giving civil disputes the color of criminal disputes for a relatively fast relief in criminal cases is an abuse of the process of law and must be discouraged.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking quashing of FIR No.749, dated 18.10.2016 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Central Faridabad, Annexure P-1, and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereof.

2. On receipt of notice of motion the State counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 while complainant/respondent No.2 also appeared through his counsel.

3. The State filed reply by way of affidavit of Atma Ram, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Faridabad. Separate reply was filed on behalf of respondent No.2 contesting the present petition.

4. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner to the aforesaid written reply(s).

5. The brief facts of the case are that FIR, Annexure P-1, was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent No.2 Suraj Bhan Chauhan, wherein he has stated that accused No.2 Mahesh approached him with a proposal of good deal with regard to sale of land by the petitioner who is stated to be the owner of total land measuring 67 Kanal 11 Marla. On the basis of said offer petitioner and Mahesh agreed to sell 31 Kanals of land out of aforesaid total area to the complainant and the land was also shown to the complainant by both the accused persons. The deal was settled as per which the accused persons agreed to sell the said 31 kanal of land to the complainant for sale consideration of Rs.24,21,875/- and accordingly agreement to sell dated 7.1.2005 was executed between the parties and Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as earnest money by the complainant to the accused and the sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 4.5.2005. No objection certificate was required to be obtained by the proposed vendors before the execution of the sale deed, from the Town and Country Planning Department. However, the accused persons failed to get no objection certificate from the concerned authorities by the stipulated date i.e. 4.5.2005. Thereafter, petitioner sent a false legal notice dated 8.5.2005 wherein he stated that he was no longer having any authority to execute the sale deed as the previous owners have canceled the General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) which were earlier executed by them in favour of the petitioner. However, this fact was denied by the previous owner in his affidavit dated 24.6.2005 and they denied having canceled any GPA. Thereafter, the complainant filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.1.2005 and the said suit is recently decided by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. The accused persons were having mala fide intention since very beginning to defraud the complainant and they took Rs.5 lakhs from the complainant in order to cause wrongful loss to him. That at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 7.1.2005, the accused persons proclaimed themselves to be the owner of the property in question and they never disclosed that they were acting on behalf of the land owners being GPA holders. That the said fraud was committed by the accused persons in order to deceive the complainant. Consequently, the impugned FIR, Annexure P-1, was registered on 18.10.2016.

6. The counsel for the petitioner while challenging the FIR, Annexure P-1, has submitted that the agreement to sell dated 7.1.2005 was executed without any mala fide intention by the accused persons including the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that at the time of registration of the FIR, the complainant did not disclose material facts to the police. Actually the complainant lodged private criminal complaint against the accused persons including the petitioner in which similar allegations were made to the effect that the petitioner and other accused entered into an agreement to sell dated 7.1.2005 with dishonest intention to commit fraud and the accused persons caused wrongful loss of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. The counsel fo