JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Deepak Mishra, the learned AGA.

The informant was put to notice on 8.9.2020 and the office report dated 2.11.2020 indicates that neither acknowledgement nor any undelivered cover has been received. We have no option but to presume the service to be sufficient on the informant.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 26.6.2020, registered as Case Crime No.369/2020, under Sections 420/406/467/468 IPC, P.S. Partapur, Meerut.

1. The case set up in the FIR lodged by the informant/respondent no. 3 is that he in the capacity of Managing Director of Solitare Food Pvt. Ltd (for short the Company) entered into an agreement on 4.2.2013 with the petitioners for purchase of land for total sale consideration of Rs.2.05 Cr. for which payments were made by way of cash and RTGS upto 5.4.2013 but as sale deed could not be executed, the petitioners returned a sum of Rs.99 lacs to the informant upto 19.3.2015, leaving an unpaid balance of Rs.1.06 Cr. for which the petitioners executed a sale deed in favour of the informant on 15.9.2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.75 lacs, leaving a final unpaid balance of Rs.31 lacs. On repeated persuasion when the said unpaid balance was not paid, the petitioners with a view to harass the informant, filed a suit challenging the sale deed dated 15.9.2015.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that assuming all the allegations in the FIR to be true, no alleged offence is made out as the dispute is essentially civil in nature, relating to unpaid amount, criminality is deliberately assigned only with a view to extract money. It is further submitted that the parties had trading relationship in which dispute arose wherein the petitioners learnt that the informant has been duping them which led the petitioners to challenge the sale deed dated 15.9.2015.

3. Learned AGA opposed the submission on the premise that merely because a civil dispute exists between the parties, is no ground to hold that criminality is not involved, as the matter is pending investigation.

4. We are noticing a spurt in registration of FIRs/complaints involving a civil dispute and the reason being that civil disputes take years to decide whereas life of a criminal case may or may not be short but it does cause harassment

5. It is also a well established proposition of law that both civil and criminal proceedings can simultaneously co-exists as there is no universal principle of law that merely because a civil dispute is involved, no criminal case would be made out. The courts will have to take a call after examining the allegations made in the FIRs/complaints along with other materials, if any, in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether cognizable offence is made out. If a cognizable offence is made out, criminal case can proceed notwithstanding that a civil dispute may also predominantly arise. But where no cognizable offence is made out, criminal proceedings may have to be nipped in the bud.

6. The offence under which the FIR has been lodged, are Sections 420/406/467/468 IPC.

7. Cheating has been defined in Section 415 of the Penal code as under:

415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

The following are the essential ingredients of cheating:

1. Deception of any person;

(2)(a)fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person;

(i) to deliver any property to any person;

(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

(iii) or intentionally induce the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything