A breach of a sale agreement due to failure to execute a sale deed after receiving advance payment, in the absence of dishonest intention at the inception, is a civil dispute and does not attract criminal liability for cheating or criminal breach of trust.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1864 of 2021 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an agreement of sale was executed in favour of the de facto complainant and that the de facto complainant has filed the present case alleging that the sale deed was not executed in their favour. Despite receiving the advance sale consideration, they have further disputed that the title is defective. He further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature and does not fall within the scope of criminal proceedings. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, admittedly, there is an agreement of sale between the petitioners and the de facto complainant herein, as the petitioners have received the advance sale consideration but have not executed the sale deed within the time specified. Therefore, the complaint has been lodged. The ingredients of the offences prima facie attract the allegations against the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The execution of the agreement of sale is not disputed by either party. However, there is a discrepancy with regard to the amount of advance sale consideration paid. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they received Rs.9,00,000/- as advance, whereas the respondent No.2 has alleged that a sum of Rs.15,20,000/- was paid as advance. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is disputing the petitioners’ title, alleging that when they approached HDFC Bank for a loan, the bank declined to sanction the loan on the ground that the title deed is defective. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record the receipt of the online transaction to show that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was repaid to respondent No.2.

7. Upon perusal of the contents of the complaint and the recitals in the charge sheet, it is disclosed that an agreement of sale was executed between the parties, whereby the petitioners agreed to register the sale deed upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. However, the same could not be materialised for several reasons. In such circumstances, respondent No.2 may as well file a suit for specific performance. However, the present complaint has been filed alleging that the petitioners are not coming forward to register the land and have further stated that, even if they have good title, they would neither execute the sale deed nor return the amount. But, the petitioners has placed it on record that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been returned to respondent No.2.

8. However, petitioners are facing allegations for the offences under Section 420, 406 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC. The said Sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“Section 420:- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to