Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for mere breach of contract; there must be evidence of fraudulent intent from the outset for an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

Judgment

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter CrPC) for quashing of FIR No. 250 dated 30.11.2016 under Sections 420/120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.12.2015 with the complainant-respondent No.5 for sale of land measuring 56 kanal 10 marlas situated at village Ali Sher for a consideration of Rs.15,25,000/- per acre (8 kanals). The petitioners namely Jiwan Kumar and Charanjit sons of Ram Pal had received Rs.10 lacs as earnest money on 04.12.2015, thereafter Rs.15 lacs more as earnest money were received by them on 06.04.2016. As such, they had received a total amount of Rs.25 lacs was received by the petitioners from the complainant-Respondent No. 5 and it was settled to get the sale deed executed. On 20.05.2016, the complainant went to the office of Sub Registrar, Lehra to get the sale deed executed along with the remaining expenses of sale deed, stamp papers and witnesses but the petitioners did not turn up. The petitioners, in connivance with each other, intended to usurp the earnest money of Rs.25 lacs by not executing the sale deed.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the present FIR is lodged on the basis of non-compliance of the condition incorporated in the agreement to sell dated 04.12.2015 in which the allegations are that the petitioners have received a sum of Rs.25 lacs and the target date for the execution of the sale deed was fixed as 20.05.2016. The private respondents kept on requesting the petitioners to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell, however, they did not come forward for the same and as such, on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.5, the present FIR was registered on 30.11.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no offence under Sections 420/120-B of IPC is made out and it is purely a civil dispute and the same has been given a criminal colour which has been converted into the present FIR. Respondent No.5 has already filed a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance for agreement to sell dated 04.12.2015 on 07.10.2017(Annexure P-6) in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), District Sangrur. Respondent No.4 is the husband of respondent No.5 and is working as a Head Contable in the police force and their son respondent No.6 also works in the police department, as such, the present FIR was registered due to their undue influence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that once the petitioners denied the execution of agreement to sell after accepting the amount of sale consideration, they are liable for criminal action as their intention was to cheat from the very inception. Further, a part of the sale consideration was paid through cheque and as such the petitioners cannot deny the execution of the agreement to sell.

6. Learned State counsel contends that the registration of FIR is justified since petitioners had moved a representation dated 12.07.2016 but did not appear before the jurisdictional police officers in order to pursue the same and as such, this Court cannot look into the probable defence in the present petition.

7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are entitled to plead every plausible defence before the Civil Court including the denial of execution of the agreement to sell. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioners had dishonest intentions right from the beginning. Admittedly, respondent No.5 did not appear before the Sub-Registrar, Lehra for the execution of the sale deed on the target date i.e. 20.05.2016. The issue with regard to the performance of the agreeme