Yashsvi Parakh S/o Kantilal Parakh Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 66, Malviya v. 1 - Santosh Sharma S/o Lt. Banjrang Sharma Aged About 59 Years R/o Kadambari
Case Details
2025:CGHC:15798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1175 of 2025 Yashsvi Parakh S/o Kantilal Parakh Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 66, Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Santosh Sharma S/o Lt. Banjrang Sharma Aged About 59 Years R/o Kadambari Nagar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Accused) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
37. It is settled law that the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 420, which we have already extracted, is that there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person. We have already quoted the relevant allegations in the complaint and perusal of the same clearly shows that no such dishonest intention can be seen or even inferred inasmuch as the entire dispute pertains to contractual obligations between the parties. Since the very ingredients of Section 420 are not attracted, the prosecution initiated is wholly untenable. Even if we admit that allegations in the complaint do make out a dispute, still it ought to be considered that the same is merely a breach of contract and the same cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. Inasmuch as there are number of documents to show that appellant-Company had acted in terms of the agreement and in a bona fide manner, it cannot be said that the act of the appellant-Company amounts to a breach of contract.” Crmp1175 of 2025 5 9.
Arguments
: Shri Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate For Respondent/State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : Shri Pranjal Shukla, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 03.04.2025 1. Present petition filed under Section 528 of the CrPC is against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, CG in Criminal Revision-287 of 2023, whereby the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an Agreement between the parties was executed on 15.03.2016 to sell the land of Khasra No.180/41, area 3,000 sft situated at village-Sikola, Tahsil and District-Durg, for total consideration Crmp1175 of 2025 2 amount of Rs.11 lacs. Respondent-1 has obtained Rs.10 lacs out of the total consideration amount in three installments, on 15.03.2016, 24.03.2016, and 31.03.2016 but the sale deed of the said land could not be executed. Since respondent-1 has not executed the sale deed, petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, which has been dismissed by the learned CJM Durg vide order dated 02.06.2023, holding that the dispute between the parties is purely a contractual dispute, and Civil in nature, and there is no ground to proceed with the complaint made by the petitioner. 3. The Order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg was challenged by the petitioner by filing a CRR-287 of 2023 before the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which is also dismissed on 29.01.2025, and the same is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from the very beginning, respondent-1 was having intention to cheat the petitioner, and not to execute the sale deed in his favour, and has obtained consideration amount of Rs.10 lacs in three installments, which shows his fraudulent act. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-1 though has disclosed that there are three co-sharers of the land, and he obtained their consent to sell the land in favour of the petitioner but in fact, there is no consent obtained by him, and ultimately, he is evading registration of the sale deed, despite having obtained advance amount of Rs.10 lacs from him. Therefore, the ingredients of cheating are there in the complaint made by the petitioner and the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional court are liable to be set aside. Crmp1175 of 2025 3 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that learned trial Court as well as revisional Court has considered the dispute between the parties is contractual in nature, and it is a Civil dispute. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of documents annexed with the petition, it is quite vivid that there was an agreement between the parties on 15.03.2016 for sale of the land of Khasra No.180/41, area 3,000 sft, situated at village-Sikola, Tahsil and District-Durg for total consideration of Rs.11 lacs. It is alleged by the petitioner that despite obtaining the advance amount of Rs.10 lacs in three installments, the sale deed was not executed by respondent-1. It also appears that when the agreement between the parties was executed, the parties are under obligation to obey the terms and conditions of the agreement, and if there is violation of any terms and conditions of the agreement, they can very well execute before the competent Civil Court by filing appropriate civil suit under the relevant laws. There may be so many reasons for not executing the sale deed, and that has to be proved by leading cogent evidence before the competent Civil Court. 8. In the matter of Thermax Limited and others Vs KM Johny and others, 2011 13 SCC 412, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in the contractual matter in criminal jurisdiction, and in para 34 and 37, Hon’ble Court has held that: “34.The principles enunciated from the above-quoted decisions clearly show that for proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Crmp1175 of 2025 4 Code, the complaint must disclose relevant material ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. If there is a flavour of civil nature, the same cannot be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. If there is huge delay and in order to avoid the period of limitation, it cannot be resorted to a criminal proceeding.
Decision
In view of the above, and also in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thermax (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 10. In the result, the petition fails, and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.04.11 10:49:32 +0530