IMPORTANT POINT
Breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The Appellant having failed before the High Court has filed the present appeal. A prayer was made for quashing of F.I.R. No.430 dated 16.10.2017 under Sections 420, 120B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petition filed before the High Court seeking quashing thereof was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a plot measuring 1 (Kanal) on 27.05.2013 with Malkit Kaur, wife of Surender Singh resident of Dhillon Colony, Near Electricity Grid, G.T. Road, Moga, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab on 27.05.2013. On the basis thereof appellant entered into an Agreement to Sell the same to Sarabjit Kaur wife of Darshan Singh (respondent No.2) on 18.11.2013. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 25.06.2014. It was categorically mentioned in the Agreement to Sell that at present the vendor was not the owner of the property. The appellant received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-as earnest money and the date of registration of sale deed was fixed as 25.06.2014. The date for execution of sale deed was extended to 24.12.2014 on receipt of additional sum of Rs. 75,000/-. A complaint was filed by Darshan Singh (complainant/ respondent No.2), son of Jangir Singh on 30.09.2015 with reference to the same alleged Agreement to Sell however against property dealers Manmohan Singh, son of Prakash Singh and Ranjit Singh alias Billa, son of Pal Singh. In the aforesaid complaint, reference was made to two other transactions entered into by Darshan Singh and prayer was that an amount of Rs. 29,39,500/-be got recovered from the property dealers.

3. The aforesaid complaint was investigated and finally on 18.05.2016, it was opined that the dispute being civil in nature, no police action was required. Darshan Singh made another complaint on 05.10.2016 with the same allegations without disclosing the fate of his earlier complaint. Referring to the earlier enquiry made, the aforesaid complaint was consigned to record on 23.01.2017. Thereafter, another complaint was made by Darshan Singh against the appellant, Ranjit Singh and Manmohan Singh. It is on the basis thereof that F.I.R. in question was registered under Sections 420, 120-B and 506 IPC against the appellant, Manmohan Singh and Ranjit Singh.

4. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No.2 who claims himself to be the husband of vendee had filed two complaints earlier with the same set of allegations and those were consigned to record on the basis of the legal opinion received opining the case to be of civil nature. In the first such complaint, there were no allegations against the appellant. In fact the dispute is purely civil in nature. In case the appellant failed to execute the sale deed for which admittedly the last date fixed was 24.12.2014. Respondent No.2 could have availed of his appropriate remedy of specific performance of Agreement to Sell but no suit was filed. However, third complaint was filed without disclosing the fate of earlier two complaints. The F.I.R. in question was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 on 15.06.2017 i.e. nearly three years after the date fixed for execution of sale deed. The respondent No.2 had never issued any notice prior to the filing of the compliant with the police seeking any remedy. A perusal of three complaints filed by respondent No.2 clearly suggest that from the initial prayer for return of the amount paid by him, subsequently the allegations of cheating was made. In the first complaint while referring to different transactions, the allegation was only against the property dealers not against the appellant whereas in subsequent complaint improvement was made and she was also involved.

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the chargesheet having been filed, the appellant can raise all the pleas before the court below. It is not a case for quashing of the F.I.R.

6. Des