HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.1996 of 2010 Date: October 19, 2011 Between: K.Yadaiah, S/o.Mallaiah and others … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, through The Station House Officer, Shadnagar P.S., Mahabubnagar and another … Respondents Order: This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.519 of 2009 on the file of Shadnagar Police Station of Mahabubnagar District. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, which was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., upon which, a crime is registered against the petitioners and another lady Smt.Kanthala Eshwaramma for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1890. The case of the 2nd respondent-complainant is as under: Originally, the lands in Sy.Nos.593, 594 and 595 of Kishannagar village are the ancestral joint family properties of A-1, A-3 and A-4 and their elder brother Sri Mallaiah. On 26.03.2002, A-1, A-3 and A-4 and their elder brother Sri Mallaiah have partitioned the aforesaid lands by registered Deed of Partition bearing document No.1456/2002. During the said family partition the land in Sy.No.594/A (Ac.2.05 guntas), Sy.No.595 (Ac.7.35 guntas) totally admeasuring 10 acres, had fallen to the share of A-1, but subsequently on 22.07.2002, A-1 gifted an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.594/A and an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.595 to his wife, i.e. A-2 by Gift Settlement Deed vide document No.3537/2002 and delivered possession; thus A-2 became the owner and possessor of the land and she, in turn, sold the said land through a registered sale deed vide document No.11552/2005, dated 26.10.2005, to LWs.1 and 2; thereafter, the 2nd respondent-complainant has purchased the same by registered sale deed, dated 31.07.2008, vide document No.6084 of 2008. In the complaint, it is alleged that though A-1 has already gifted the land to A.2, who in turn, sold the same to LWs.1 and 2, which was purchased by the 2nd respondent-complainant, in view of the increase in price of the land, A.1 has executed Deed of Cancellation of Gift in favour of A.2 on 07.11.2005; after such cancellation, A.1 has transferred the said land in favour of A.3 and A.4 and based on such documents, they got implemented their names in the revenue records with the active collusion of the revenue authorities and A.1 to A.4 are trying to interfere with the possession of the 2nd respondent- complainant with regard to the said land. It is further alleged in the complaint that A.1 to A.4 have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that even as per the contents of the complaint, no case is made out against them, so as to proceed with investigation and trial for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC and the Gift Settlement Deed, vide document No.3537/2002 is cancelled by Deed of Cancellation of Gift in favour of A.2 on 07.11.2005, and after such cancellation, the land claimed by the 2nd respondent-complainant was transferred to A.3 and A.4 vide document No.3734/06 on 22.02.2006. It is further submitted that as the claim of purchase by the 2nd respondent-complainant is from LWs.1 and 2 on 31.07.2008, taking the complaint as it is, there are no ingredients attracting the offences as alleged. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant that having executed gift deed in favour of A.2, who has sold the said land in favour of LWs.1 and 2, from whom the 2nd respondent-complainant has purchased, A.1, with a dishonest intention, executed cancellation deed on 07.11.2005, and thereafter, transferred the property in favour of A.4 and A.5 by registered document, dated 22.02.2006, vide document No.3734/2006. It is further submitted that based on such documents, there is interference by the petitioners-accused; as such there are no grounds to quash the proceedings as prayed for. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I have perused the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, which is also contained in the F.I.R. issued in Cr.No.519 of 2009. Learned counsel for petitioners, in support of his submissions, relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court i n V.Y.Jose and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another[1], wherein, while referring to the provision under Section 415 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Section 415 of the Penal Code defines cheating as under: “415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or mission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation of property, is said to ‘cheat’. An offence of cheating cannot be said to have been made out unless the following ingredients are satisfied: (i) deception of a person either by making false or misleading representation or by other action or omission; (ii) 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. For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out.” From the said judgment, it is clear that any offence of cheating cannot be said to have been committed unless there is deception of a person either by making false or misleading representation or by other act or omission, 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. In this case, taking the complaint of the 2nd respondent-complainant as it is, except referring to the cancellation deed of gift and execution of document in favour of A-3 and A-4 by A-1 on 22.02.2006, there is absolutely no whisper with regard to the ingredients which constitute cheating so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is to be noticed that the 2nd respondent- complainant alleges cheating by the petitioners-accused. It is to be further noticed that the 2nd respondent herself claims to have purchased property from LWs.1 and 2 only in the year 2008, i.e. by registered document dated 31.07.2008. Further, forgery has also been alleged, but there are no ingredients attracting the offence of forgery from the contents of the complaint. From the contents of the complaint, it is clear that the dispute is purely of civil nature and the same is sought to be projected as a criminal case by initiating criminal proceedings. The judgment referred above as relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners (1 supra), fully supports the plea of petitioners. In the absence of the present complaint attracting the offences as alleged, if the proceedings are allowed to go on, it will lead to miscarriage of justice and it amounts to abuse of process of law. For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.519 of 2009 on the file of Shadnagar Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, are quashed so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 19, 2011 MRR [1](2009) 3 SCC 78