THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.1073 OF 2009 ORDER:- This application is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.322 of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. On 02-05-2002 an agreement of sale is said to have been entered between the petitioner herein, who is the accused and respondent and the petitioner agreed to sell an extent of Ac.0.42 cents of land @ Rs.55,000/- each per cent and an advance of Rs.21 lakhs is said to have been received by the petitioner and the balance of sale consideration has to be paid on or before 01-11-2005. In case of failure to pay the balance sale consideration, the agreement stands cancelled. In case, the sale deed is not executed in favour of the second respondent in spite of readiness and willingness, the petitioner undertakes to return the double the advance sale consideration with penalty and with the above terms the said agreement has been executed. Thereafter, according to the respondent, in spite of readiness and willingness the petitioner has not registered the sale deed and on the other hand when a notice was given calling upon the petitioner to execute the registered sale deed, a false reply was given and amount was not returned and therefore it is an act of cheating. Incidentally, it is also to be noted that in the suit O.S.No.536 of 2008 which was filed by the second respondent for specific performance of contract of sale, the defendant who is the petitioner herein has pleaded by filing a written statement that some of the alleged payments to an extent of Rs.60,000/- mentioned by the complainant is not true and there was some alteration to the original agreement and the breach has been committed by the complainant himself. The police after receiving the complaint have investigated into the case and filed a charge sheet by alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence under Sections.406, 411 and 420 IPC. Questioning the said charge sheet, the present application is filed to quash the proceedings. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether there are sufficient and reasonable grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.322 of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa? POINT:- Evidently, the agreement of sale between both the parties stipulates the consequences in case of breach by either of the parties. Therefore, it is a case of mutual contractual obligations between the parties to be performed. It is a question of fact as to whether who has committed the breach. In case the accused has committed the breach, the complainant will be entitled to double the amount of payment which has been received. In case the breach is committed by the complainant, the contract itself stands cancelled. Therefore, mere denial of the right of specific performance to the notice given by the complainant is no ground to infer that there was a criminal intention on the part of the petitioner. So far as Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is not a case of entrustment of any property which is said have been misappropriated by the petitioner since under a contract of sale as a valid consideration the amount has been paid to the petitioner. So far as the offence of Section 417 IPC is concerned, which has been referred in the charge sheet, there is also no sustainable charge since the agreement is already with the complainant himself and the fact of forgery or fabrication does not lie with the accused/petitioner. So far as Section 420 IPC is concerned, even at the inception of the contract, parties have contemplated the consequences of the breach. In such circumstances, any criminal intention at the time of entering into the contract cannot be inferred and it is squarely a case where the rights of the parties have to be determined under the contract of sale dated 02-05-2005 and is of a purely civil in nature and consequently the criminal case is an abuse of process of law and, accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.322 of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa is quashed and accordingly the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.322 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 17-11-2011 TSNR