ORDER

This Crl.M.C is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.585/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur, arising from Crime No.71/2018 of Tirur Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The above case is registered based on a private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he and the 2^nd respondent entered into an agreement for innovating the house of the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner obtained an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 25.04.2013 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 18.05.2013. He further alleged that he had obtained an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on various occasions on the promise that the said amount would be spent in the procurement of costly materials for renovation of the house. However, accused used under quality materials for the renovation of the house and the renovation was done in such a manner that water was leaking during the monsoon. Hence it is alleged that accused committed the offence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the party respondent. I also heard the Public Prosecutor.

4. The allegation against the petitioner as per Annexure-IV final report, is extracted hereunder:

ഒ്ᩐാം സാ്ᩌിയുടെ(cid:11) ഉ(cid:11)മ്ᩝതയിലു്ᩦ തിരൂർ മുനിസി്ᩔാലി്ᩢി ടെതᨪ᪎ംമുറി എ്ᩐ ്ᩝല്ᩈ് വാർഡ് XVI-

66 ്ᩝല്ᩈിലു്ᩦ പഴയ വീ(cid:11)് വില കൂ(cid:11)ിയ മര്ᨲളും സാമ്ᩇഹികളും ഉപയയാഗി്ᨴ് 35ല്ᩌം രൂപ്ᨪ് പൂർ്ᩈിയാ്ᨪി 31.05.2014 തീയതിᨪ᪎്ᩦിൽ കൈകമാറണടെമ്ᩐ വ്യവ്ᩝയിൽ ്ᩚതി ഒ്ᩐാം സാ്ᩌിയിൽ നിᩐ᪎ം 25.04.2013തീയതി മുതൽ പലയ്ᩔാഴായി 20 ല്ᩌം രൂപ കൈകപ്ᩢി 12,04,765/- രൂപᨪ᪎്ᩦ പണി മാ്ᩔം ന(cid:11)്ᩈി ബാ്ᨪി പണം ്ᩚതി സ്വ്ᩌം ആ്ᩇഹ്ᩈിനായി ഉപയയാഗി്ᨴ് ്ᩚതി ഒ്ᩐാം സാ്ᩌിയയാ(cid:11)് മനഃപൂർവം വ്ᨸന ടെL്ᩓിരി്ᨪയാൽ ്ᩚതി ഇ.ശി.നി 406, 420 എ്ᩐീ വകുᩔ᪎കൾ ്ᩚകാരം

ശി്ᩌാർഹമായ കു്ᩢം ടെL്ᩓിരിᨪ᪎ᩐ᪎ടെവ്ᩐ് .

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent in connection with the concession of a house and certain amount was transferred to the petitioner. But, the petitioner completed the work using low quality materials and hence, the petitioner committed the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Whether the same amounts the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is the question to be decided. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, it's only a violation of an agreement between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent.

6. In C. Subbiah alias Kadambur Jayaraj and Ors. Vs. The Superintendent of Police and Ors. [2024 KHC 6288], the Apex Court considered the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

"40. The complainant has clearly alleged that the accused caused him monetary loss because the appropriate share of profits was not passed on to him after some plots from the entire chunk had been sold. This Court in the case of Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr5 observed that:-

"A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up the promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings".

41. Similarly, in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B.6, this Court while tracing the earlier decisions on the subject observed as under:

24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636] observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.

25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. [In