Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing of FIR dated 04.02.2023 registered at Police Station

Kolar Road, District Bhopal at Crime No.88/2023 for the offences punishable

1

under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC.

2. Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that one Akram Siddique

had lodged a complaint against the petitioners. As per said complaint Akram

Siddique had entered into an agreement with Vaheed Khan and Abdul Rauf

Khan for purchase of 5 acres of land bearing Khasra Nos. 142, 145 and 156 for

total consideration of Rs.12,05,00,000/- . At the time of agreement,

Rs.26,00,000/- was paid and Rs.2,17,00,000/- was transferred through their

bank account. Remaining amount is to be paid within period of eight months

from the date of agreement. Before expiry of period of eight months, accused

persons sold 1.5 acres of land to K.N. Thapak who is resident of Gwalior.

Accused persons also failed to return the amount. On said complaint police has

registered offences under Section 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. Agreement is said to

have been entered in year 2011 and FIR was registered on 04.02.2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that no offence

under Section 406 and 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioners even if,

complaint filed by respondent No.2 is taken to be true. In these circumstances,

FIR registered at Police Station Kolar Road, District Bhopal at Crime

No.88/2023 be quashed.

4. Government Advocate appearing for State as well as counsel

appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that offences of cheating as well as

criminal breach of trust is made out against the petitioners. Immediately after

entering into contract petitioners sold out the land. Petitioners were having

dishonest intention and property belonging to respondent No.2 was converted

to his own use. As per the contract, petitioners had to sold the land in question

to respondent No.2 and said liability and duty is arising out of express legal

2

contract, therefore, petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust. Further

petitioners refused to return the money obtained from respondent No.2 and

committed offence of cheating. In these circumstances, petition filed by

petitioners be dismissed.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. "Trust" has been defined in Legal Glossary published by Legislative

Department, Government of India as follows:

"Trust: 1. an obligation annexed to the ownership of

property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and

accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him

for the benefit of another and the owner [s.3, Indian Trusts

Act] u;kl ¼Vz~LV½ ; 2. to response confidence in [s.

14, ill. (f), Indian Evidence Act] Hkjkslk] fo'oluh;rk ; 3.

responsibility nkf;Ro."

7. Black Law Dictionary defined 'trust' as under:-

"Trust, 1. The right, enforceable solely in equity, to the

beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person

hold the legal title; a property interest held by one person

(the trustee) at the request of another (the settlor) for the

benefit of a third party (the beneficiary). 2. Trust is

fiduciary relationship regarding property and charging the

person with title to the property with equitable duties to

deal with it for another's benefit. Trust exists when

property is to be held or administered by one person on

behalf of another or for some purpose other than his own

benefit or when creator of trust hands over control on

asset which is to be administered by another in capacity

as such for benefit of some person (beneficiary) other than

the trustee or for some impersonal object."

8.On going through aforesaid definition of 'trust', it is clear that owner

(settlor) has to hand over the property to another person i.e. trustee for benefit

of third party beneficiary. In the present case, agreement to sale (contract

3

(VISHAL DHAGAT)

JUDGE

between petitioners and respondent No.2) will not fall within the definition of

contract creating trust of fiduciary relation. Therefore, it cannot be said that

th