The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3288 of 2022 Pratap Kumar Pattnaik & another …. Petitioners Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another Opp. Parties Ms. S. Mohanty, Addl. P.P. Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate for O.P. No.2 …. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 20.08.2025 07. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. By means of this application the Petitioners seek to quash the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned SDJM, Bhawanipatna in C.T Case No.1255 of 2021 arising out of Bhawanipatna P.S. Case No.447 of 2021. 3.
Facts
The background facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No.2 lodged a complaint before the IIC, Bhawanipatna Town P.S., inter alia, alleging that on 01.03.2021, the Petitioners came to his house and approached him and his wife to purchase a piece of land measuring an area of Ac. 0.255 Dec. situating at Mouza-Paramanandapur, adjacent to the National Highway No.26, by expressing their dire necessities of money for repayment of debts. The Opposite Party agreed to purchase the same and accordingly the consideration amount was fixed and the Petitioners entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 on 03.03.2021, fixing the consideration amount of ₹1,42,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). According to the complainant, the Opposite Party made an advance of Rs.5,00,001/-(Rupees Five Lakhs and One only) through one cheque vide No.400642 dated 03.03.2021 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Bhawanipatna. On 17.03.2021, he paid a sum of ₹10,00,001/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs and One only) in cash to the Petitioner No.2. Having come to know that Petitioner No.2 was not the true owner of the land in question and that he obtained a forged Record of Right in his name, the Opposite Party expressed his intention to rescind the said agreement and accordingly the Petitioner No.2 refunded a sum of ₹7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only) on 12.06.2021 with a written agreement to refund the balance amount before 05.08.2021. On the very day i.e.12.05.2021, the Petitioner No.1 issued one postdated cheque bearing No.647842 dated 05.08.2021 in favour of the Opposite Party. However, on the request of the Petitioners, when the cheque was presented by the Opposite Party with his banker for encashment, the cheque was dishonoured with endoresement “Funds Insufficient”. Due to the dishonour, the Opposite Party and his Page 2 of 7 wife approached the Petitioners who abused and assaulted them. It is further alleged that the Petitioners also tried to outrage the modesty of Opposite Party’s wife and both the Petitioners threatened them of facing dire consequences. 4. The complaint of the Opposite Party was registered vide Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No.447 of 2021 dated 13.11.2021 and investigation commenced. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioners in the offence under Sections 420/417/294/354/509/506/34 of the IPC. The learned
Legal Reasoning
S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna having found prima facie case made out against the Petitioners under the aforesaid offences, took cognizance of the offences, implicating the Petitioners. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioners moved here in this application. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, in course of hearing of the application, inter alia, submitted that the order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M. is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is contended that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, so as to attract Section 420 IPC, are absent in the present case. There is no material to prima facie indicate that the Petitioners had any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction to cheat the Opposite Party. It is argued that the Petitioners had clearly disclosed before the Opposite Party the details of the land, its extent and the Record Page 3 of 7 of Right standing in the name of Petitioner No.2. The allegation of the Opposite Party is that the said Record of Right standing in the name of Petitioner No.2 had been fraudulently obtained, whereafter the Opposite Party voluntarily chose to rescind the agreement and demanded refund of the advance consideration. In such circumstances, it is submitted, there was neither any inducement on the part of the Petitioners nor any intention to deceive the Opposite Party to part with money by fraudulent means, and as such the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, however, did not challenge the cognizance taken in respect to the other offences, save and except mentioning it in the application that the allegations of the Opposite Party in respect to the offence under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC have been levelled only to create a pressure on the Petitioners, although the entire gamut of the dispute between the parties relates to a civil nature. 7. Mr. Chand, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations clearly disclose a prima facie case against the Petitioners. It is urged that the very agreement entered into between the parties reflects that Petitioner No.2 had projected himself to be the owner of the property, whereas in fact he was not. The representation regarding ownership was false to the knowledge of O.P. No.2 at the time of entering into the Page 4 of 7 agreement. Such conduct, it is submitted, squarely attracts the ingredients of Section 415 IPC and brings the case within the ambit of Section 420 IPC. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties, it is necessary to recapitulate the relevant provisions enumerated for the offence under Sections 415 & 420 of the IPC as follows:- 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 omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 9. It is settled law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation. From a mere failure to keep the promise subsequently, such culpable intention at the very inception, i.e., at the time when the promise was made, cannot Page 5 of 7 be presumed. A fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the very beginning when the promise or representation is made. Mere non-refunding of the advance amount, which may at best constitute a simple breach of contract, does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust. 10. As seen from the impugned order, the learned court has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 417 of the IPC. The distinction between Section 417 and Section 420 is that where, in pursuance of the deception, no property is delivered, the offence is one of cheating punishable under Section 417; whereas, where in pursuance of the deception property is delivered, the offence is punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. In every case, where property is delivered by a person deceived, there must necessarily be a stage when such person makes up his mind to part with the property on accepting the false representation made to him. It cannot, therefore, be said that in such cases the accused can only be tried for the simple offence of cheating under Section 417 and not under Section 420, because the person cheating, parts with his property subsequent to making of his mind to do so. The delivery of property follows from the inducement and the decision to part with it. 11. In the instant case, the Petitioners had prima facie shown to the O.P. No.2 not only the piece of land purported to be sold but also the Record of Right standing in the name of Petitioner No.2. The very fact that the O.P. No.2 later came to Page 6 of 7 know that Petitioner No.2 had allegedly acquired the said land fraudulently and prepared the RoR, is a matter within the knowledge of the O.P. No.2 alone. The decision of O.P. No.2 to rescind the agreement and seek refund of the advance amount is essentially civil in nature. Consequently, none of the ingredients of the offences under Section 417 or Section 420 IPC are made out in this case so as to bring the Petitioners within their ambit to face trial. 12. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC, does not withstand the test of law and the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 taking cognizance in offence under Section 417 and 420 of the IPC by the learned S.D.J.M, Bhawanipatna in C.T Case No.1255 of 2021 stands quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed. 13. It is made clear that since the Petitioners have not assailed the cognizance taken in respect of the other offences, the proceeding shall continue against them insofar as those offences are concerned. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Sarbani Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 22-Aug-2025 15:22:49 Page 7 of 7