IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 175 of 2009 Harpal S/o Heerwa …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State. 2. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 31/10/2008 and 13/02/2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar and District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar respectively. 3. The petitioner moved an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar for the registration of the case before the police. The learned Magistrate after going through the contents of the application did not found prima- facie criminal case and dismissed the application. The order passed by the Magistrate was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge vide its order dated 13/02/2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, this petition was preferred. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. According to the contents of the application, it is alleged that on 11/11/2005 a chak No.502 measuring 0.458 hectares was sold by the respondent Nos. 2 by an agreement to the petitioner and respondent No.3 also make second agreement on the same day of chak No. 534 measuring 0.571 hectares by an agreement. Both the respondents took the money from the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not 2 execute the sale deed of the same inspite of taking the money from the petitioner. The said property was disposed of in favour of the respondent No.4 Smt. Phoolwatik. The respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were the witnesses of the said agreement. It was further alleged that by not executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the respondents had cheated him, as such, a prima-facie case u/s 420, 467, 468, 469, 406, 471 and 120B I.P.C. is made out and the police be directed to register the case and investigate the matter. 6. It is settled position of law that where there is a breach of contract, simply criminal liability did not arise. The mensrea is sine- quo-non for proceeding in the cases where there is a breach of agreement. The averment alleged in the application itself shows that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not execute the sale deed according to the terms of the agreement. As such, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that there was mensrea from inception in the minds of the respondents. It is merely a case of breach of contract and there is no criminal liability of the respondents. I am completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the both the courts below. 7. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed accordingly summarily. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 06.03.2009 Shiv 3