Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amandeep Singh Jawandha,Adv. Ms. Anju Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. Birendra Bikram,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR

Key Points: - The court held that breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction. (!) - Merely alleging failure to keep up a promise is not enough to initiate criminal proceedings; the proceedings can be an abuse of process if the case is civil in nature and used to pressurize for return of funds. (!) - The FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed because the complaint was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed, indicating misuse to pressure for settlement. (!) - There were prior complaints, initially without allegations against the appellant, suggesting the case evolved to include the appellant to pressure for recoupment. (!) (!) - There was no demonstrated readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed by the vendee, and no civil proceedings were initiated to enforce execution before filing the FIR. (!) (!) - The criminal courts are not to be used to settle civil disputes; if the ingredients of criminal offences are not clearly made out, cognizance should not be taken. (!)

How to determine when breach of contract justifies criminal prosecution for cheating?

What is the effect of delaying a sale deed execution on the maintainability of an FIR for cheating?

What are the circumstances under which a complaint to a police authority can be quashed as abuse of process of law?