Existence of fraudulent intention is essential to substantiate cheating; mere non-fulfillment of a civil agreement does not constitute a criminal offense.

1. By consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records in Cr.No.735 of 2006 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was carrying on the business in Real Estate under the name and style of Nature Development Company. One of their projects relates to Farm House Plots to be developed in and around Sholinganallur village, Tamabram Taluk. The petitioner had arrangements with various land owners when the land value was Rs.7 lakhs per plot measuring about 4 grounds. One Sri G. Balachander, IAS approached the petitioner and represented that some of IAS officers and IPS officers were also interested in buying the Farm House. After negotiation, those persons, who are interested, were asked to remit Rs.25,000/- as advance payment by demand draft in the name of the Company. However, the 2nd respondent, who was an IAS Officer, paid only a sum of Rs.10,000/- and plot Nos.151 and 152 each measuring 4 grounds were earmarked for him. However, due to unforeseen development including the sudden spurt in real estate prices, the owners of the land refused to sell their lands . Some of the individuals, apprehending land acquisition proceedings, received back their advance amount. The petitioner by his letter dated 6.12.2005 informed all the prospective purchasers that the transaction of sale could not be gone through and requested them to collect the advance amount paid by them. However, the defacto - complainant sent a reply dated 24.3.2006 making allegations against the petitioner. He also lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the Thoraipakkam Police which was registered in Cr.No.813 of 2006 under S.417 and S.420 IPC. The case was transferred to Central Crime Branch and was re - registered in Cr.No.735 of 2006. It is alleged that the petitioner having taken an advance amount of Rs.10,000/-, promising to convey two plots for Rs.7 lakhs each, did not conclude the transaction and thereby cheated him.

3. The petitioner approached this court for anticipatory bail and this Court directed the petitioner to return the amount received as advance. Some of the officers took back the advance. However, some of the officers refused to accept the advance amount, but insisted upon registering the document of sale. This Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the money. According to the petitioner the FIR is abuse of process of law on the ground that the matter is civil in nature and there is no element of cheating.

4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter stating that on a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case has been registered and investigated and according to the respondent, the investigation revealed that the petitioner had approached the complainant with an offer of house plots at the price of Rs.7 lakhs per plot and made the complainant to agree to purchase the plots and pay him an advance with fraudulent representations. It is submitted that the petitioner had even identified the house sites and has represented to the de facto - complainant that several IAS and IPS officers have joined the scheme.

5. It is further submitted that knowing fully well that the enrolment of IAS and IPS officers would enhance the stake in the demand for lands, the petitioner had lured many IAS and IPS officers with this offer and it is further stated that investigation is still p