JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1130 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

2. The basis for filing the charge sheet against the petitioners herein is the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The allegation against the petitioners is that the 2^nd respondent purchased the plot No.7 in Sy.No.528 and 529 to an extent of 827 sq.yds in Vijetha Layout of Muthangi Village, Patancheru, Sangareddy District, near Bombay Highway. The plot was purchased from these petitioners and A3 on 21.01.2000. He constructed a family portion and compound wall, covering the entire plot, and also obtained an electricity connection in the year 2002. The said property was used as a godown.

3. There was a layout of the land in Acs.19.13 guntas in Sy.No.528 and 529, after obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat. According to the complainant, the petitioners and A3 have again sold the entire extent of the land as agricultural land to several others. Since the plot was initially sold to the 2nd respondent and later the layout land was sold as an agricultural land to third parties, the 2^nd respondent was cheated. The police registered the complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and filed a charge sheet for the said offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks quashing of the proceedings on the following grounds:

1. The allegations against the petitioners are civil in nature.

2. Section 420 of IPC is not attracted, as there is no wrongful loss to the complainant or wrongful gain to the petitioners.

3. There is no misappropriation or breach of trust on the part of the petitioners.

4. By no stretch of imagination, will the complainant’s property be affected, as his plot was not sold.

5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that, having knowledge about the purchase of the plot by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioners have deliberately sold the land to third parties, resulting in wrongful loss to the complainant.

6. In A.M. Mohan vs. The State represented by SHO and Ors, [MANU/SC/0227/2024, 20.03.2024 - SC]

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of Indian Penal Code are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:

(i) The deception of any person;

(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) Dishonest intention of the Accused at the time of making the inducement.”

7. Ingredients of Sec 406 IPC:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Gaba v. State of U.P., held that:

“Section 406 IPC prescribes punishment for breach of trust which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, when ingredients of Section 405 IPC are satisfied. For Section

2 (2023) 3 SCC 423

406 IPC to get attracted, there must be criminal breach of trust in terms of Section 405 IPC.

15. For Section 405 IPC to be attracted, the following have to be established:

(a) the accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property:

(b) the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so;

and (c) such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.”

8. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1