The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal proceedings.

1. The unsuccessful petitioner in criminal revision No. 668/1999 has preferred this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth 'the Code') praying for dismissing the complaint and quashing the process which has been issued against him in criminal case No. 1172/1998 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class by order dated 26-10-1999.

2. Brief facts necessary to unfold the main issue in the petition are that the respondent No. 1 Charanjit Singh filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur alleging that he had agreed to purchase the land situated at plot No. 19/3, Block No. 19 in Civil Station, Raipur from the petitioner and his brother's son - respondent No. 2 on 5-7-1994. Under the agreement, the respondent No. 1 had initially paid Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. According to the terms of the agreement, after getting the renewal of the lease of the property mentioned above, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were required to inform the respondent No. 1. It was only thereafter that respondent No. 1 was required under the agreement to get a sale deed registered. On payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner on 25-6-1996 and pursuant to a condition in the agreement dated 5-7-1994, the parties had, on 25-6-1996, extended by mutual consent the period of execution of sale deed. The petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney soon thereafter in favour of the respondent No. 2 on 2-7-1996 for executing a sale deed. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 did not give any intimation regarding renewal of the lease to respondent No. 1 and surreptitiously and without informing Sardar Sarabjit Singh about the agreement entered into by them with respondent No. 1 sold one shop and the land situated behind it to Sardar Sarabjit Singh on 3-7-1996 for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/-. On these premises, a complaint for offence under S.420, S.467, S.468 and S.471 read with S.34 of the IPC was filed by respondent No. 1.

3. The statements of complainant / respondent No. 1 Sardar Charanjit Singh and witness Gurubax Singh were recorded under S.200 of the Code and by order dated 10-9-1997 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class took cognizance of an offence under S.420 of the IPC against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 by registering criminal case No. 1172/1998.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred criminal revision No. 668/1998 before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. By the impugned order dated 21-6-2000 the revision was dismissed while affirming the order taking of cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 under S.420 of the IPC.

5. Admittedly, after filing of the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the respondent No. 1 had also filed a Civil Suit No. 9A / 2000 against the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and the purchaser Sardar Sarabjit Singh for specific performance of contract. It is also not in dispute that the said Civil Suit was dismissed by judgment dated 11-10-2001 on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. A finding was recorded in the Civil Suit that the respondent No. 1 had paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner herein on 25-6-1996. Admittedly, first appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 against the judgment dated 11-10-2001 is pending. The present petition under S.482 of the Code was filed on 25-7-2000