The court held that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the necessity of fraudulent intent from inception.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.270 of 2024 of Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

2. This Court on 17.03.2025, passed the following order:

“This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused No.1 No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in Cr.No.270 of 2024 of Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda District.

There was no representation on behalf of petitioner on 23.12.2024 and 11.03.2025. On 12.03.2025, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of petitioner and the matter was posted under the caption “for dismissal”.

Today, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of petitioner.

It is observed from the record that Mr.N.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, filed this petition, however, he has not appeared before the Court on the last four occasions.

This Court is not inclined to dismiss the criminal petition for non-prosecution and deems it appropriate to give an opportunity to one of the youngsters in the Bar to present the case. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Mr. Mohammad Nabeel Ali (Phone No.8074729358) as amicus curiae to assist the Court by making submissions on the facts and also on law.

Registry is directed to inform petitioner through a letter along with notice that Mr.N.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner has not appeared before the Court to present the case and for non-appearance, this Court appointed Mr. Mohammad Nabeel Ali (Phone.No.8074729358) as amicus curiae and petitioner shall pass instructions to Mr. Mohammad Nabeel Ali (Phone.No.8074729358).

Post the matter on 07.04.2025.”

3. Heard Mr. Mohammad Nabeel Ali, learned amicus curiae for petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Perused the material on record. Notice issued to respondent No.2, no representation.

4. An FIR.No.270 of 2024, dated 10.05.2024, is lodged in Adibatla Police Station, on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.2. It is averred in the complaint that respondent No.2 came into contact with petitioner/accused No.1 and petitioner had informed respondent No.2 that he entered into an agreement with one Mr.Antony with regard to plot bearing No.108 admeasuring 400 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.536, 537, 657 and 658 at Manneguda. It is averred that the cost of one sq. yard is to be sold at a price of Rs.11,500/-. On 24.07.2023, that a day before the agreement, respondent No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused No.1 and on 25.07.2023, day of agreement Rs.7,00,000/- was given to petitioner. It is further averred that petitioner promised to register the said parcel of land in the name of respondent No.2 within 45 days. That on 06.08.2023, when accused No.1 requested respondent No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- from his bank account to accused No.1’s bank account, an amount of Rs.90,000/- was paid through Phonepe, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cash was given to petitioner. That a total amount of Rs.16,00,000/- is given to petitioner. That on 05.09.2023, accused No.1 called respondent No.2 and stated that owner Antony is coming to speak that after speaking to Antony, respondent No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.9,20,000/- from his bank account to account of Antony. That when respondent No.2 asked about registration, accused No.1 informed respondent No.2 to prepare DD’s for registration for amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,30,000/-. The rest of the amount was agreed to be given in the cash. That later respondent No.2 called petitioner, however, there was no response from accused No.1 and it was informed to respondent No.2 that he would register the said plot on so and so dates but never registered. It i