Criminal Misc. No. M-25443 of 2010(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-25443 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 01, 2011 Kulwinder Kaur ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. Mr.M.S.Dhami, Advocate for respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) CM No.46247-48 of 2010 : Applications are dismissed as withdrawn. Main Case : Kulwinder Kaur – petitioner along with her son Sandeep Kumar and husband Tirath Ram is facing trial in case bearing First Information Report (for short `FIR') No.4 dated July 07th, 2010 under Sections 406, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') registered in Police Station NRI, SBS Nagar. By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `CrPC'), she seeks quashing of the FIR. 2. Prosecution was launched on the statement of Amrik Singh – respondent No.2, who is Non Resident Indian and is residing in England. It was alleged that he appointed Sandeep Kumar as his attorney vide power of attorney dated February 24th, 2009 to look after his land situated in village Gujjarpur, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Criminal Misc. No. M-25443 of 2010(O&M) [2] Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. On April 26th, 2010, Sandeep Kumar took him to the office of Sub Registrar Nawanshahr on the pretext that his presence was required in that office for getting the sanction of the mutation of the land, which he had sold last year. He went to the said office and Sandeep Kumar got his signatures on some papers. Later on, that is, on July 06th, 2010, Amrik Singh noticed that Gurmail Singh was plying his field. On enquiry, it was revealed that said field was sold to him vide sale-deed dated April 26th, 2010. Hence, a complaint was filed by Amrik Singh on July 07th, 2010 against the petitioner, her son and husband. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that sale-deed (Annexure P2) was executed by Amrik Singh in favour of Gurmail Singh and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said transaction. 4. A perusal of the sale-deed shows that the land was sold by Amrik Singh for an amount of Rs.20,50,000/-. Photographs of Amrik Singh – complainant (vendor) and Gurmail Singh (vendee) have also been affixed on the said sale-deed. A specific question was posed by this Court to the counsel for the State as well as for Amrik Singh, as to what was the evidence collected against the petitioner. They contended that only evidence collected was that she has a joint account with her son Sandeep Singh and it was found that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was lying deposited in the said account, for which the petitioner has no explanation. 5. To constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, following ingredients are required:- (i)Entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property (ii)that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation : (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in Criminal Misc. No. M-25443 of 2010(O&M) [3] which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust; and to constitute the offence of cheating, following must be the ingredients:- “(i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii)in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 6. Here, in the case in hand, there is no evidence worth the name to say that any of the ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating have been made out against the petitioner. 7. In view of above, petition is accepted. Consequently, FIR No.4 dated July 07th, 2010 under Sections 406, 420/120B IPC registered in Police Station NRI, SBS Nagar. and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed against Kulwinder Kaur – petitioner. November 01, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE