To prove cheating under IPC, intention to deceive must be established; mere non-compliance with a contract does not suffice.

C A V Judgment

1. The present petition has been filed by the appellant under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 12.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in complaint case no. 222/2013 whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent and Sanjeet Singh Wadhwa for the offence under Section 420 and 468 of IPC and the court below registered the case under Section 420 of IPC against the respondent and compounded the offence with co- accused Sanjeet Singh Wadhwa. The appellant and Sanjeet Singh Wadhwa entered into compromise and on the ground of compromise the Trial Court acquitted the Sanjeet Singh Wadhwa. As per the complaint respondent and Sanjeet Singh Wadhwa executed the agreement of sale in favour of the appellant in respect of the land situated at Village Bijour, PH No. 20, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) on 19.04.2006 and obtained Rs. 15 lacs as advance and they gave assurance to the appellant that they have purchased the subject land from the land owner and after received the sale consideration to tune of Rs. 7,60,000/- per acre sale deed will be executed in favour of the appellant within 6 months from the date of agreement. As per the agreement, the respondent failed to provide sale deeds from land owners, then appellant made enquiry and he got the knowledge that respondent and Sanjeet Singh Wadhwa had not purchased the agreement land from the land owners, despite they are executing agreement to sale and obtained advance amount, therefore he requested Sanjeet Singh Wadhwa to return the advance amount but they denied.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is bad in law, illegal thus liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the Trial Court has wrongly concluded that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent is civil in nature despite appellant tried criminal colour by way of complaint. He further submits that the respondent and one Sanjeet Wadhwa intimated to the appellant that he entered into the agreement for purchase from the owner of the aforesaid land and appellant relied upon the statement/promise of the respondent and Sanjeet Wadhwa and he was ready to purchase the aforesaid land, but the respondent failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant within agreed time, hence he had made inquiry, then he found respondent and Sanjeet Wadhwa neither entered into agreement for the purchase of the said land from the land owner nor given any advance amount, meaning thereby respondent cheated to the appellant, hence appellant made complaint before the concerned police authority, but they failed to take action against the respondent and Sanjeet Wadhwa. Hence the complaint has been preferred before the learned Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 420,468 of IPC. The learned Trial Court overlooked the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2013) 2 SCC 801, wherein para 21 to 24 held that necessary ingredients of the cheating are mens rea, intention to deceive.

4. In the instant appeal duly known that he neither entered into agreement for purchase of the aforesaid land from the land owner nor given advance for purchase of the land, despite he entered into agreement dated 19.04.2006 with the appellant, wherein specifically stated that he purchase the aforesaid land from the land owner, which crystal clear shows mens rea of cheating to the appellant. Respondent received Rs. 15 lacs from appellant as advance for sale of the aforesaid land with Sanjeet Wadhwa which also crystal clear shows the intention to deceive the appellant.

5. He placed his reliance on Mohammad Ibrahim & Ors Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009)