A charge under section 420, IPC can only be imposed if there was an intention to deceive at the very inception, and a dispute essentially of a civil nature should not be given a cloak of criminal offence.

ORDER :

1. This revision application under section 397 read with section 401, Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the order dated 20-7-2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 277/17 by Ist A.S.J. Ujjain, whereby charges under sections 294, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) have been framed against the applicant.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of present revision application are that respondent No. 2 and applicant (being a power of attorney holder of landlord Jalam Singh) entered into an agreement for sale and purchase respectively of land bearing survey No. 98/03 admeasuring 0.40 hectares situated at village Badodiyakaji, Tehsil Ghattiya, district Ujjain. According to the allegation levelled by the respondent No. 2, sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 6,16,000/- and the applicant received Rs. 2,21,000/- as earnest money in furtherance to the agreement. In spite of the said agreement, when respondent No. 2 urged the applicant to execute the sale deed in his favour, he did not execute the same and abused and threatened him to kill. In the meantime, Jalam Singh sold the aforesaid land to one Smt. Gokulbai W/o Soudansingh for a consideration of Rs. 7,36,000/- thereby the applicant committed act of cheating. Respondent No. 2 complained against the applicant and on the basis of which respondent No. 1 registered an FIR for the offences indicated herein above and submitted the charge sheet before the competent Court of jurisdiction which led to framing of charges against the present applicant. Hence, applicant approached this Court challenging the impugned order framing charges against him.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that instant case is clearly a dispute of civil nature which has been given a colour of criminal case in order to pressurize the present applicant to enter into a settlement so that the applicant may approach respondent No. 2 for settlement in the matter by paying some money. He has further submitted that the narration of events, as per the charge sheet, did not satisfy the ingredients of offences charged against the applicant for the reason that applicant was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2, however, respondent No. 2 has not paid the remaining consideration amount so as to execute the sale deed within a prescribed period of three months as mentioned in the sale agreement. If the applicant failed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2, then as per the condition of the agreement, he is having the right to take recourse of civil suit for specific performance of contract or refund of earnest money, therefore, no criminal liability is made out against the applicant.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court does not enjoy much latitude for taking a view of discharge and only the prosecution material is to be examined. It is further submitted that once the sale deed is executed by Jalam Singh (owner of the land) in favour of Smt. Gokulbai, the subsequent sale deed is clearly an act of cheating as Jalam Singh and applicant have no right available to have executed a subsequent sale deed in favour of other person and due to the said act, respondent No. 2 has been deprived of his legitimate right to enjoy the property.

5. I have taken note of rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record in their context.

6. Before moving ahead with the adjudication of rival contentions, it is imperative that scope of consideration at the stage of framing of charge be clearly denied so that the appreciation of evidence must take place within the frame work. In this regard, reference may be made to the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, which is being reproduced as under:

12. Now the next question is