The legal principle established is that criminal accusations of cheating and breach of trust cannot coexist if the underlying facts are purely civil in nature.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “a) The petitioner most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the FIR registered against the petitioner as per Annexure-A in Crime No.121/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 of IPC registered by the Anekal Police on the file of the learned Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Anekal.

b) Call for the records, peruse the same, allow the above petition or in the alternative pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to pass on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. ”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. Though respondent No.2 is served with notice, he has remained unrepresented and has not chosen to contest this petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent – Police registered a case on 03.05.2025 against the accused in FIR in Crime No.121/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Anekal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. A perusal of the material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witness, documents and etc., will clearly indicate that the same do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences. It is also relevant to state that the dispute between the parties is purely civil/commercial in nature in respect of the immovable property. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. , - (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2248, the two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

6. In Delhi Race Club’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under:

“36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See: Lalit Chaturvedi And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another - 2024 SCC Online SC 171 and M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr -. 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]

xxxx

42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police – to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegat