Civil disputes shouldn't be prosecuted as criminal cases when essential elements of cheating are absent.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.245/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2. Respondent No.2 - Complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that the present petitioner - accused has cheated the complainant.

3. The sum and substance of the private complaint is that the petitioner–accused allegedly assured the complainant that he would sell a particular site in the complainant’s favour. Acting on this assurance, the complainant claims to have paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- in cash on 15.06.2016 to the accused. It is further alleged that the accused, by giving a false assurance of executing the sale deed in respect of the said site, induced the complainant to part with the aforesaid amount.

4. The complainant avers that despite repeated requests and demands, the accused failed to execute the sale deed in his favour. It is also stated that, in order to gain time and pacify the complainant, the accused issued three blank cheques assuring that he would register the site in the complainant’s name. However, even after the lapse of six months, the accused neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. 5. The complaint further narrates that, at the instance of the complainant, the matter was placed before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who summoned the accused. During that intervention, the accused is said to have acknowledged the receipt of Rs.35,00,000/- and agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the site for a value of Rs.25,00,000/-, promising to return the remaining Rs.10,00,000/-. Notwithstanding this assurance, the accused allegedly failed, despite repeated demands, either to execute the sale deed or to return the amount received. Consequently, the complainant approached the learned Magistrate by filing a private complaint, alleging that the petitioner–accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

6. Upon presentation of the complaint, the learned Magistrate, after examining the contents thereof, referred the matter under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the jurisdictional police for investigation. Acting on such reference, the police registered a crime for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention to the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the petitioner seriously disputes the alleged transaction with the complainant. He would further contend that, even assuming the allegations in the complaint to be true at their face value, the dispute is, at its highest, a civil dispute arising from an alleged agreement to sell. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the complainant was not justified in converting what is essentially a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

8. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State submits that, at this preliminary stage, the materials on record are sufficient to proceed against the accused. It is, therefore, urged that this is not a fit case for the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interdict the investigation or quash the proceedings.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on record and on perusal of the material placed before this Court, it is noticed that Respondent No.2 – the De-facto Complainant has not chosen to contest the present proceedings despite due notice. A plain reading of the averments contained in the