The main legal point established in the judgment is that the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating is based on fraudulent or dishonest intention, and the availability of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal proceedings if cheating or criminal breach of trust has been committed.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 12.11.2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 261 of 2014 under sections 420 and 406 IPC Police station Hathras Gate, District Hathras registered as Case No.73 of 2015 (State vs. Smt. Mahadevi and others) pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Hathras and to direct that no coercive action may be taken against the applicants in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 12.11.2004.

3. The main argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged 11 years after the date of occurrence and in the grounds taken by him in affidavit filed in support of the application it has been mentioned that the opposite party no. 2 had filed an original suit no. 200 of 2004 (Prem Singh and another vs. Smt. Mahadevi and 4 others) in which he had also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC seeking punishment for committing contempt of court but when he did not succeed there, he lodged this FIR. This is nothing but purely civil dispute between the parties. There is no independent witness of the occurrence and the statements of the witnesses are stereo typed. The facts mentioned in the FIR and the complaint cannot be taken as gospel truth, this is nothing but malicious prosecution and entire proceeding needs to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.. 2 though had appeared but has not filed any counter affidavit and his main argument has been that no averment was made by the applicant that the agreement to sell was a fraudulent document.

5. In order to appreciate the arguments of the respective parties, it is essential to give here the facts of the case in brief, which are as follows:

6. As per FIR, the opposite party no. 2 Ranveer Singh, one Indal Singh son of Deepa resident of Khera Baramai, P.S. Mursan had executed an agreement to sell on 03.02.2003 of his land in favour of opposite party no. 2 Ranveer Singh, Prem Singh and Preetam Singh after having received Rs.one lac and thereafter Indal Singh died. In the said agreement to sell the wife of Indal Singh Smt. Maha Devi accused-applicant no. 1 was a witness but Maha Devi and her sons namely, Har Prasad, Mahendra, Satya Prakash, Kailashi had executed a sale deed on 19.10.2013 playing fraud upon opposite party no. 2 and his co-sharers in favour of Nem Singh, accused-applicant no. 6, Prem Singh accused-applicant no.7, Raj Kumar accused-applicant no. 8 in collusion with Omwati accused-applicant no.10, Sushma Chaudhary and Omveer Rana fraudulently, in which witnesses were namely Rameshwar, Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Subodh Kumar, Pritam Singh, Ajit Singh and Chandravir who were also involved in this conspiracy despite the fact that there was a status quo order passed by the court below on 25.5.2006 in respect of the said property.

7. After investigating the case, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet, which is annexed Annexure-1 to the affidavit. Out of the total 17 persons named in the FIR, only against 10 persons charge sheet has been submitted while proceedings were dropped against seven persons by the Investigating Officer.

8. It is revealed from the perusal of the record that on 03.02.2003 one Indal had entered into an agreement to sell with Prem Singh, Preetam Singh and Ranveer Singh (opposite party no..2) under certain conditions which were to be fulfilled within a certain period of time, failing which agreement to sell was to have no force and its copy has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The said conditions incorporated in the agreement to sell were flouted and hence the same became non est. In the meantime, Indal Singh i.e. father of the applicant nos. 2 to 5 and husband of applicant no. 1 died, thereafter on 8