The central legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of cheating under Section 420 I.P.C., there must be an element of cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C., and fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Udai Bhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 2548, under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Hathras Gate, district-Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, as well as summoning order dated 19.12.2017.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant and opposite party no. 2 are the grandsons of late Netram Sharma, who during his lifetime executed a registered trust deed on 01.01.1945 and the father of the applicant was nominated as Manager of the aforesaid trust, thereafter a registered will deed dated 20.11.1974 was executed by late Netram Sharma, by which all managerial rights of the aforesaid trust was given to Sri Damodar Das (father of the applicant). It was further provided in the aforesaid will deed that heirs of Damodar Das will continue to manage the affairs of the trust. Subsequently, the opposite party no. 2 and his brother started putting their claim over the property of trust, denying the trust deed, as well as will dated 20.11.1974. After the death of Damodar Das, father of opposite party no. 2 has filed a suit bearing Original Suit no. 48 of 1983 for declaration of ownership regarding trust property. Subsequently, this suit was disposed of on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties regarding trust property. Subsequently, when the opposite party no. 2 had started interfering the applicant in the enjoyment of the property in question, then the applicant has filed Original Suit No. 201 of 2005 for permanent injunction and declaration. The said suit was decreed by order dated 19.02.2010, in which the applicant was declared Manager of the trust and opposite party no. 2 and his brother were injected from transferring any part of the property of the Dharamshala, though the aforesaid judgment dated 19.02.2010 passed in Suit No. 210 of 2005 was challenged by the opposite party no. 2 in First Appeal No. 213 of 2010 but this Hon'ble Court did not stay the judgment dated 19.02.2010 and only order of status quo was passed. After loosing the litigation, the opposite party no. 2 has filed impugned complaint on 19.06.2017 on the ground that applicant has violated the terms of compromise entered into between the parties in Suit No. 48 of 1983 before the Munsif Court, Hathras.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that from the perusal of the impugned complaint, no case under section 420 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant and the ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C. are missing and there is no allegation that applicant had fraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver any property.

5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that specific case of opposite party no. 2 in his complaint as well as in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is that though as per compromise entered into between the parties, during pendency of the Suit No. 48 of 1983, the Dharamshala was given to opposite party no. 2 but in violation of the aforesaid compromise deed and the applicant retained the same with malafide intention. Therefore, even if the entire allegation of the complaint as well statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. are taken as true even then case under Section 420 I.P.C. is not made out against the applicant. The Apex Court in number of judgments held that there is tendency of the parties of converting a civil litigation into criminal litigation. Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023) SCC online SC 603 observed in paragraph 36, which reads as under:

"What is evincible from the extant case-law is that this Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of crim