IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 25 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53778 of 2019 ANITA CHAPROT Versus RAJESH CHOUDHARY Appearance:

Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Prakash Chandra Shrivas, learned counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of complaint case No. RCT 1698/2019 pending before the CJM, Ratlam filed by the respondent/complainant against the applicant.

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that applicant executed an agreement to sale dated 10.2.2016 for selling of her agricultural land bearing survey No. 83/1 and 79 situated at village Kaneri, Tahsil and District Ratlam but in the agreement to sale, real boundaries were not disclosed to defraud the complainant and to usurp Rs. 10 Lacs as consideration for agreement to sale. When the complainant got copy of Naksha trace from Patwari, he found that knowingly 4 corners of the land proposed to be sold were not disclosed. On this complainant filed the instant complaint under section 420 IPC which resulted into the criminal case.

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that it is a purely civil dispute.

Both the parties have filed civil suit which are already pending. No ingredients of offence under section 420 IPC are made out. Applicant has not suppressed four Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA corners of the land proposed to be sold. Applicant in agreement to sale has mentioned same four corners of the land which were mentioned in the sale deed executed in his favour. On these contentions, learned counsel prays for quashing the aforesaid criminal case.

3. Learned counsel for respondent submits that from the very inception of the executing agreement to sell the applicant has intention to defraud the complainant for usurping the amount of Rs.10 Lacs, therefore on his complaint, case has been registered. Ingredients for the offence under section 420 IPC are made out, therefore there is no ground to allow the petition filed for quashment of complaint case arose from the complaint filed by him.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is not disputed that parties have entered into agreement to sale. The applicant proposed to sell some part of her land bearing survey Nos. 79 and 83/1 of which she is registered owner. From perusal of sale deeds in favour of complainant, it is apparent that there is no suppression of four corners of the land proposed to be sold to the complainant. It is also not a case where complainant was not having any opportunity to visit the land proposed to be purchased by him. Civil suits are already pending between the parties regarding the same transaction.

Section 420 IPC reads as under :

"Sec.420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducting delivery of property - whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

6. It is nowhere proved that from very inception of the transaction the applicant was having bad case to defraud the applicant. In such circumstances, in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA the considered opinion of this court, the offence under section 420 IPC is not made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to