TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to pay the amount on due date. The ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are - Deception of any persons, Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. The High Court, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. - S.B. Sinha and A.K. Ganguly, JJ. For Appellant: Sachin Jain and Kailash Chand, Advs For Respondents: Vivek Sharma and Chander Shekhar, Advs. for Temple Law Firm JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether breach of contract of an agreement for sale would constitute an offence under Section 406 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is the question involved herein. 3. It arises in the following factual background: Appellant is the owner of some agricultural lands. He entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent No. 2 agreeing to sell 13 acres of land at the rate of ₹ 4,70,000/- per acre. Allegedly, responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.9.2006, inter alia, alleging: ...we got a call from Surjit Singh, who said us to come tomorrow i.e. 12.05.2006 to execute the sale deed and if they could not execute the sale deed they will return our money. We again reached Tapa Mandi on 12.05.2006. The above said accused were called at the home of Shri Harbans Singh they said that they don't want to sell their land, so you take your money back. After this we accused persons came at Tapa Mandi where cancellation deed was executed accused have returned us ₹ 7,80,000/- remaining amount of ₹ 14,20,000/- was promised to return till 10.06.2006 it was also written, if accused persons could not return ₹ 14,20,000/- till 10.06.2006, the agreement to sell will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st information report No. 302 dated 7.9.2006. By reason of the impugned order dated 31.8.2007, the said application has been rejected by a learned Single Judge of the said Court, stating: The petitioners despite the agreement to sell having been cancelled have not returned the earnest money, which is indicative of their dishonest intention leading to registration of the FIR. Nothing has been shown to this Court which could persuade it to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Dismissed. 8. Mr. Sachin Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would urge that the allegations made in the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'. An offence of cheating would be constituted when the accused has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. A pure and simple breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating. 11. The ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are: (i) Deception of any persons; (ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. 12. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. Yet again, in Hira Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2009CriLJ2849 , this Court held: 10. The parameters of interference with a criminal proceeding by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code are well known. One of the grounds on which such interference is permissible is that the allegations contained in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, commission of an offence is not disclosed. The High Court may also interfere w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
