THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4854 OF 2009 DATED:20-01-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.597 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, Warangal District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. None appeared for the 2nd respondent though served with notices. Perused the records. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, alleging offence under Section 420 IPC and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police filed charge sheet against the petitioner- accused and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same in C.C.No.597 of 2007 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. According to the complainant, accused offered to sell the house property to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.6,01,000/- and the complainant paid advance of Rs.30,100/- on 13-05- 2007 and subsequently, he obtained demand draft for Rs.2,70,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the accused on 11-06-2007 and 13-07-2007. Complainant alleges that the accused executed agreement of sale on 13-05-2007 after receiving the advance, promising to execute a sale deed by 13-07-2007. Complainant further alleges that he approached the accused along with demand drafts but the accused refused to receive the same and declared that he is not going to sell the house. Complainant, therefore, alleges that the accused deliberately cheated him. 4. A perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet would go to show that the dispute is entirely civil in nature. The grievance of the complainant is that the accused, having agreed to sell the house and having received Rs.30,100/- as advance and also having executed the agreement of sale, refused to receive the balance sale consideration offered by way of demand drafts and refused to execute the registered sale deed as promised. It is not disputed that the 2nd respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2007 against the accused for specific performance and the same is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. It is also not disputed that the petitioner-accused filed O.S.No.274 of 2007 against one Manchala Rajaiah, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant and tenant of the house and the same is also pending. 5. The question as to whether or not the complainant is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale and whether or not the accused has committed any breach of contract, are matters to be decided in the suit-O.S.No.85 of 2007, which is pending. 6. It is well settled proposition that to constitute an offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, there shall be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the person so deceived to deliver any property and such intention shall be in existence at the time the inducement is made. The second part of the illustration (g) to Section 415 IPC states as follows: “but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract” 7. In view of the above illustration (g) to Section 415 IPC, the failure, if any, on the part of the accused to execute registered sale deed at all, would only amount to breach of contract, but certainly does not constitute an offence of cheating within the meaning of Section 415 IPC. 8. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the prosecution when the contents of the complaint, even if taken on their own face value do not, prima facie, constitute the offence alleged. 9. In a decision reported in MURARILAL GUPTA v. GOPI SINGH[1], the apex Court held as follows: “We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint and the orders of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Having taken into consideration all the material made available on record by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted. The complaint is an abuse of the process of the Court and the proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Even if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet the case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code is not made out. The complaint does not make any averment so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been made by the petitioner pursuant to which the respondent parted with the money. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner does not have the property or that the petitioner was not competent to enter into an agreement to sell or could not have transferred title in the property to the respondent. Merely because an agreement to sell was entered into which agreement the petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the petitioner has cheated the respondent. No case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 IPC is made out even prima facie” 10. In the present case also, a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet would disclose that the dispute is civil in nature and the grievance of the 2nd respondent-complainant is that the petitioner-accused has gone back on his promise and failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale. A perusal of the said contents does not disclose that the ingredients of the offence of cheating, as envisaged in Section 415 IPC, are attracted at all. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision, which are applicable to the facts of the present case, it must be held that further proceedings in C.C.No.597 of 2007 are not sustainable against the petitioner-accused as no prima facie case is made out and the ingredients of the offence alleged are not attracted even prima facie. The continuation of further proceedings in C.C.No.597 of 2007 would amount to an abuse of process of law as the dispute is essentially civil in nature. Hence, further proceedings in C.C.No.597 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, Warangal District, are held liable to be quashed, and they are accordingly quashed, invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th January, 2011 Tsy [1] (2006) 2 SCC (CRI) 430