IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurbir Singh, J.
Harbans Singh Sandhu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 51959 of 2022
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Cheating - Quashing of FIR - Sections 420, 406 of IPC - [415, 420 IPC] - The court discussed the essential ingredients of the offense of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC, emphasizing the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest inducement. It also referred to the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, highlighting that fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. The court relied on legal provisions and interpretations to conclude that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and that the provisions of Section 420 IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. The court found the lodging of FIR to be an abuse of process of law and quashed the same.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of cheating and breach of contract in a land sale transaction. Multiple complaints were filed against the petitioner by different persons, alleging that the petitioner had received token money for land sale but did not fulfill the agreements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature and that the provisions of Section 420 IPC were not attracted against the petitioner. It concluded that the lodging of FIR was an abuse of process of law and quashed the same.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of cheating and breach of contract in land sale transactions, as well as the applicability of Section 420 IPC to the petitioner's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest inducement for the offence of cheating, and highlighted the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating. It relied on legal provisions and interpretations to conclude that the dispute was civil in nature and that the provisions of Section 420 IPC were not attracted against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned FIR No.164, dated 01.08.2022, under Sections 420, 406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner only.
JUDGMENT
Gurbir Singh, J. (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.164, dated 01.08.2022, under Sections 420, 406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR in question was registered against the petitioner on the basis of application dated 13.03.2022 moved by respondent No.2 to the DCP Investigation. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that he was the land owner and agriculturist. He entered into an agreement to purchase qua land measuring about 3 Killas comprised in specific Khasra numbers situated in Galib Kalan-2, as per Jamabandi for the year 2019-20, Hadbast No,124, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana with the petitioner at the rate of Rs.23.00 Lacs per Killa. He entered into an agreement to purchase dated 17.02.2021 and he paid sum of Rs.25,000/- on 17.02.2021 and Rs.75,000/-on 20.02.2021 in cash as earnest money and it was settled between them that agreement to sell shall be executed within 15 days thereafter and date of execution of sale deed will be in the month of October, 2021. When the complainant contacted the petitioner on phone, the petitioner stopped attending his calls and was also not available at his house. The petitioner's servant used to say that the petitioner was ill and suffering from Corona and could not meet anyone. In the month of December, 2021, the complainant met a person namely, Sukhwinder Singh of village Gahaur, who told that he had also entered into agreement to sell of the above mentioned land with the petitioner in November, 2021 and the petitioner had received sum of Rs.5.00 Lacs in his account and Rs.5.00 lacs in cash as earnest money and he was not responding to his phone calls. When the complainant enquired about this person, it came to light that many cases are pending against him and his sons regarding money transactions with other persons. The petitioner had also received Rs.2.00 Lacs from one person, namely, Mohan Singh Virk, resident of Hambran as earnest money regarding the same land and the petitioner was not attending phone calls of all these persons and further threatened them that he would neither execute sale deed nor return the money. The complainant further stated that he was ready and willing to pay the remaining amount for getting the sale deed registered in his favour. On the basis of preliminary inquiry, the case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen and presently the Chairman of Shree Guru Harkrishan Public School, Bathinda and is former Chairman of S.G.T.D. College of Engineering and Technology, Malaudh. The petitioner is the owner of the Hotel/Restaurant, namely, Mini Holland, Dakha, which was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deeds dated 27.07.2016 and 01.08.2016. In the month of August, 2019, Sandeep Singh Sekhon, Paramvir Singh, Sandeep Singh son of Karamjit Singh approached the petitioner and showed their intention of taking the above mentioned hotel/restaurant on rent and the petitioner agreed for the same and premises was given on rent on 01.08.2019 at the rate of Rs.1.50 Lakhs per month. The above-said persons forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of usurping the hotel/restaurant of the petitioner. When forgery was brought to the notice of the petitioner, then the petitioner moved a complaint on 23.03.2022 and on the basis of preliminary inquiry, FIR No.86, dated 03.06.2022 was registered against the said persons. Respondent No.2 is the man of the accused in the above-said FIR No.86. Petitioner is the owner of agricultural land in village Galib Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. But FIR in question was registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. Galib Kalan is not within the jurisdiction of Sarabha Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. No agreement to sel
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and another"
Mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under IPC; dishonest intent must be proven to establish criminal liability.
Criminal prosecution for breach of contract requires evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception; mere allegations of non-fulfillment do not suffice to establish offences under IPC sections rela....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC requires the presence of fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce delivery of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.