Essential elements of fraudulent intent must be proven for charges of cheating and breach of trust to apply; mere civil disputes do not suffice for criminal prosecution.

Order

Order Reserved On : 25/02/2025 Order Pronounced On : 22 /05/2025

1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No. 332/2022 PS Kotwali, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan for the offence under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and FIR No. 384/2021 PS Kotwali, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan for the offence under Sections 406 , 420 and 120-B of the IPC.

2. In the present case, two FIRs have been lodged at the police station Kotwali, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan, which form the subject matter of these petitions. An FIR No. 384/2021 was lodged at the instance of Gograj Anchaliya against Tejkaran Jain, alleging offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust in connection with a land transaction. Subsequently, FIR No. 332/2022 was lodged at the instance of Tejkaran Anchaliya against the petitioners, namely Gograj Anchaliya and Lalit Duggad, alleging offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. It is evident that both parties are accusing each other of cheating.

3. Shri Naman Mohnot appears on behalf of the petitioners in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6915/2022, one of whom is also a respondent in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1475/2022 and Shri O.P. Mehta appears on behalf of Tejkaran, who is the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1475/2022 and the respondent in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6915/2022.

Facts of FIR No. 384/2021

4. The brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged by the complainant accusing the petitioners of cheating in a land transaction. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 agreed to sell agricultural land to the complainant for a consideration of ₹24,80,000/- and a sale agreement dated 19.08.2019 was executed wherein ₹2,50,000/- was paid as earnest money. Thereafter, further payments totalling ₹18,60,000/- were allegedly made by the complainant, but the sale deed was not executed. Instead, the land was later sold to a third party, Anil Gelda, through a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2021. The petitioners, however, assert that the transaction was purely civil in nature and arose from non-performance of contractual terms by the buyer, Lalit Duggad, and that only ₹10,60,000/- was received. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature and the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of law.

Facts of FIR No. 332/2022

5. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that an FIR was registered at the behest of the complainant, who had initially agreed to sell his land to petitioner No. 1 due to urgent financial need. A sale agreement was executed on 19.08.2019, with an agreed consideration of ₹24,80,000/- and ₹2,50,000/- was paid as advance. It was decided that the balance amount would be paid within 45 days, making time the essence of the contract. The petitioner No. 1, who is related to petitioner No. 2, left the buyer’s name blank in the agreement, promising flexibility in transferring the land. Despite subsequent part-payments and an assurance to pay interest on delayed amounts, petitioner No. 1 later refused to complete the transaction, citing issues with the land. The complainant, after mutual discussion, sold the land to a third party on 27.06.2021. However, petitioner No. 1, in alleged collusion with petitioner No. 2, filed FIR No. 384/2021 claiming false payment of ₹18,60,000/- and asserting that petitioner No. 2 was the actual buyer. The complainant challenged this FIR be