THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7471 OF 2019

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/Complainant, questioning the orders of the trial Court and the Appellate Revision Court in dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent/accused.

2. A private complaint was filed by the petitioner herein to refer the case for the purpose of investigation. The learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, recorded the statement of the person representing the complainant company as PW.1. According to the case of the complainant, the respondent/accused approached the complainant and offered their lands for sale. After entering into a contract dated 06.04.2013, they took Rs.50 lakhs towards advance. However, the issue was dragged on without registering the land. When the complainant insisted on the return of the amount, a cheque for Rs.50 lakhs was issued by the accused. When the said cheque was presented for clearance, the cheque was returned unpaid. In fact, the agreement was for purchase of 50 acres of land at the rate of Rs.12,75,000/- per acre.

3. The learned Magistrate found that the transaction pertains to a sale, and that the complainant ought to have approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for specific performance, if the complainant had the resources to pay the amounts covered by the contract. It was further observed that there was no intention to cheat in the present circumstances of the case, and it is a clear case of breach of contract. The criminal prosecution cannot be permitted since the dispute is purely civil in nature. The said order, dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant, was passed on 07.08.2018 in S.R.No.5101/2018.

4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Magistrate, the complainant approached the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.270 of 2018.

5. The learned Sessions Judge considered the revision application and found that the complainant, except stating that the accused approached them with a criminal intent, had not set forth any circumstances before the Court to infer any dishonest intention. Further, in the complaint, there was no mention about any kind of inducement by the accused, except that a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the complainant and the accused. Further, the learned Sessions Judge found that there is no averment in the complaint that the alleged threat by the accused caused any kind of alarm to attract an offence under Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned Sessions Judge further found that it was explicit from the transactions and the Memorandum of Understanding that the case is purely civil in nature, and that any failure on the part of the accused to abide by any of the conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding ought to have been addressed by the complainant before a Civil Court. The learned Sessions Judge stated that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the complaint.

7. The complaint was filed on the allegation of committing the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The Honourable Supreme Court, in S.K.Alagh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 5 SCC 662, held as follows:

“18. Ingredients of the offence under Section 406 are:

“(1) a person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;

(2) that person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so;

(3) that 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.”

9. The Honourable Supreme Cour