The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the case, whether civil or criminal, should be determined based on the intention of the parties and their subsequent conduct. If the case involves both civil and criminal disputes, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the case is civil in nature.

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 24.01.2013 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.481/2012 by which the order dated 08.05.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 4043/2012 was affirmed.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this application are that a FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 on 28.02.2010 alleging therein that the applicant is engaged in the business of sale of second hand vehicles. The complainant had agreed to purchase two old Maruti 800 cars and, therefore, he had given Rs. 1,50,000/- to the applicant. The applicant had given the original papers of the said cars but the delivery of the vehicles was not given on the ground that some repairing works are still required to be done. However, even after passing of about 2 years neither the applicant has refunded the amount nor has given the delivery of two old Maruti 800 cars.

3. On the application of the applicant, the matter was also inquired into by the CSP Jhansi Road, District Gwalior. The CSP by its report dated 15.06.2010 held that although the complainant has stated that he had paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the applicant but he has not produced any documents in support of that contention. On the contrary, a receipt of Rs. 50,000/- has been issued by the applicant. It was further opined that on the basis of the documents available on record, it is not proved that the applicant has been given an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

In the light of the inquiry report submitted by the CSP, Jhansi Road, Gwalior, it appears that the police filed the closure report. The respondent after coming to know about filing of the closure report filed an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and objected to the closure report filed by the police. The Magistrate by considering the complaint as well as the documents furnished with the closure report rejected the closure report filed by the police and took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2012, the applicant filed a criminal revision which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 24.01.2013. Hence, this petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of CrPC.

5. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted then it would be clear that it is a case of civil dispute as there is a breach of contract and the applicant and the complainant in order to give a colour of criminal nature has falsely lodged the FIR. It was further contended by the applicant that in fact the CSP had also found that the complainant has failed to produce any documents to show that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by him to the applicant. The counsel for the applicant to buttress his contention has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd., v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 247, Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 251, Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar & Ano., (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 49, V.Y. Jose and Ano. v. State of Gujarat & Ano., (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 996, Sharon Michael & Ors., v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ano., (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 103, U. Dhar and Ano. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 974.

6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant by making the misrepresentation has deceived the complainant and induced him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- whereas his intention from the very inception was not to give the delivery of two old Maruti 800 cars. It was further submitted that if the applicant was bonafidely not in a position to give the delivery of the cars then he could have returned the amount. Failure on the part of the applicant to return the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in spite of repeated request by the respondent No.2 clearly shows that righ