cra2626.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2626 OF 2010 Vasudeorao s/o Suryakantbua Jahagirdar, Power of Attorney Holder of Sau. Vibhavari w/o Vasudeo Jahagirdar, R/o-Mill's Colony, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) Maqbool begum w/o Mohd. Kasim Qurreshi, R/o-Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.H.V. Tungar Advocate for Applicant. Shri.D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 25TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Application is filed for seeking permission to file Appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal delivered in R.C.C. No.820 of 2006 by the 8th J.M.F.C. Aurangabad. Both the sides are heard. In view of the peculiar cra2626.10 2 circumstances of the case, no need was felt to give hearing to the original accused, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. In the complaint, the present Applicant has contended that under registered sale deed, he purchased a flat from accused and in the document, undertaking was given by the accused that they will pay all the taxes, including municipal taxes. It is contended that only after receipt of the notice from Municipal Corporation regarding previous taxes, the complainant/ Applicant realised that previous taxes were not paid. Process was issued for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Evidence before charge was given and evidence after charge was given. The J.M.F.C. acquitted both the accused by observing that contents of the sale deed not proved and no offence of cheating is made out. 3. The provisions of Section 415, 418 and cra2626.10 3 420 of the Indian Penal Code show that the intention to cheat must be there at the time of transaction. In the present case, there was agreement to pay the previous taxes from the side of the accused. Even if the sale deed is read in evidence and the contention made by the complainant is accepted as it is, inference cannot be drawn that at the time of execution of sale deed there was intention to deceive. If the promise to pay the past taxes is not fulfilled by the accused, it is a case of simply breach of promise. The case cannot fall under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Unless the case falls under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, there cannot be punishment under Section 418 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, nothing can be achieved by giving permission to the Applicant to file Appeal and so the Application stands rejected. [T.V. NALAWADE,J.] asb/APR11/cra2626.10