Civil disputes regarding the non-payment of sale consideration in a registered sale deed should not be converted into criminal prosecutions for cheating or breach of trust, as criminal proceedings are not a shortcut for civil remedies.

For Petitioner: Mr.S.Frangkelin

for M/s.Saravabhauman Associates

For Respondents: Mr.R.Daya Sharif

for L.Thanasingh for R1

Mr.A.Alexander

Government Advocate (Pondy) for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mahe.

2. The first respondent lodged a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of the IPC. The allegation in the complaint is that the first respondent and her husband were known to the petitioner. While being so, in the year 2021, they approached the petitioner to sell their property situated at Door No.MMC VII/75 in R.S.No.27/4, O.S.No.105/1, Chalakara Desom, admeasuring 5.71 acres. After negotiations, the petitioner purchased the said property for a valid sale consideration by a registered sale deed dated 09.01.2021 vide document No.542 of 2021. In the said sale deed, the husband of the first respondent had also stood as a witness. Subsequently, the first respondent alleged that the sale consideration was not paid and, on that basis, filed the present private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of IPC. After recording the sworn statement, the Trial Court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner.

3. A perusal of the entire complaint reveals that the first respondent, in order to borrow a loan, had executed an agreement for sale in favour of the petitioner. The first respondent never intended to sell the property and that she had accepted a loan amount to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-. However, the petitioner did not arrange the said amount and also did not pay the agreed sale consideration. The petitioner assured that the amount would be released and as such the first respondent was constrained to execute the sale deed. However, the first respondent does not dispute the execution of the sale deed. In fact, her husband stood as witness to the document. The only allegation raised by the first respondent is that, in the recital of the sale deed, it has been stated that a sum of Rs.15,95,000/- was paid through bank transaction, which was also acknowledged by the first respondent. Now, the first respondent disputed that no amount was received through the bank.

4. A perusal of the recitals of the sale deed dated 09.01.2021 reads as follows :

5. Thus, it is clear that the sale deed did not even contain the name of the bank or the account number. Therefore, the petitioner has not specifically stated in the sale deed that the sale consideration was paid to the account of the respondent in any particular bank account. In such circumstances, the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of IPC.

6. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment made by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others [(2006) 6 SCC 736], held that the civil liability cannot be converted into criminal liability and it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circle to convert purely civil dispute in criminal case. This is obviously on account of prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of lender/credito