The courts can quash criminal proceedings if there is insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations of fraud.

ORDER

The accused in C.C.No.838/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid case.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, vide an agreement executed on 15.11.2010, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to believe that he would execute a sale deed in respect of the landed property belonging to him and his cousin brother, and received a total amount of Rs.2,55,000/- from the defacto complainant, and thereafter cheated the defacto complainant by not executing the sale deed as agreed, or returning the amount obtained from him. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3. The case has been registered by the Ranny Police on 27.10.2016, as per the directions of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny, which forwarded a complaint filed by the defacto complainant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., for registration of the crime and investigation.

4. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Ranny, has filed the Final Report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offence by the petitioner.

5. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent, and that a false case has been foisted against him. It is further contended by the petitioner that the issue involved is of civil nature, and that the petitioner is trying to misuse the process of court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

7. The failure of the petitioner to execute a sale deed in respect of the properties belonging to him, and that of his cousin brother, as promised in the agreement executed on 15.11.2010, is the crux of the issue involved in this case.

8. As per the above agreement, an extent of 20.05 Ares of land, which belonged to the petitioner, and an extent of 8.65 Ares of land, which belonged to his cousin brother, were agreed to be sold to the defacto complainant, for a sale consideration of Rs.17,000/- per cent. An amount of Rs.2,55,000/- was said to have been received by the petitioner as part of the sale consideration, in connection with the above agreement for sale. It could be seen that, obviously, the dispute involved in the case is of civil nature. Precisely due to the said reason, the defacto complainant had instituted O.S.No.30/2016 before the Munsiff’s Court, Ranny, for realisation of the amount, which he is said to have given to the petitioner herein, as part of the sale consideration. Annexure A3 judgment dated 08.08.2019 would reveal that the aforesaid suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff as barred by limitation.

9. The Final Report and the accompanying records relied on by the prosecution, are not capable of showing that the petitioner herein was having the intention to cheat the defacto complainant from the very beginning, when he entered into an agreement for sale on 15.11.2010. In the absence of the above essential requirement, it is not possible to say that the offence of cheating as envisaged under Section 420 IPC is attracted in connection with the transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, towards conveying landed property to the defacto complainant.

10. It appears that the defacto complainant had tried to give the colour of a criminal case to the breach of contract on the part of the petitioner to execute sale deed in respect of the property belonging to him and his cousin brothe