A civil land-sale dispute lacking criminality cannot sustain prosecution for cheating and criminal breach of trust.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners, Birendra Kumar and Ram Chandra Singh, colluded with Babita Devi, the complainant’s wife, in relation to the execution of Sale Deed No. 7801 dated 19 November 2015 concerning four decimals of land comprised in Khata No. 138, Plot No. 5384, in favour of Sriyansh Shubham, the minor son of petitioner No. 1.

Petitioner No. 1 contended that he had purchased the property as guardian of his minor son, while petitioner No. 2 was merely a witness to the sale deed.

A civil Title Suit No. 356 of 2016 was instituted by Krishna Deo Singh, Babita Devi’s brother-in-law, seeking a declaration that the sale deed was null and void.

The learned S.D.J.M., West, Muzaffarpur, took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 8 November 2016.

The petitioners challenged that order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted at face value, prima facie disclose the offences of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and cheating under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners.

Whether the criminal proceedings arising from the disputed sale transaction amounted to an abuse of process because the dispute was essentially civil in nature and was already the subject of civil proceedings.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order taking cognizance and the consequential prosecution.

The Court considered Sections 406 and 420 IPC, relating respectively to criminal breach of trust and cheating, and Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court relied principally on the categories permitting quashing where the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence; where the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose commission of an offence; and where the proceedings are manifestly mala fide or inherently improbable.

Under G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, and Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, criminal law cannot be used as a shortcut for resolving disputes essentially civil in nature, particularly where the allegations do not disclose the basic ingredients of a criminal offence.

The Court also relied on Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 14 SCC 572, reiterating that a civil dispute should not be given a criminal colour in the absence of dishonest or fraudulent intention and other essential criminal elements.

The Court treated the transaction as a disputed sale of immovable property. Petitioner No. 1’s asserted role was that of guardian purchasing property for his minor son, and petitioner No. 2’s role was confined to witnessing the sale deed.

On the complainant’s own case, the sale deed had been executed by Babita Devi; consequently, any defect in her title or authority primarily raised questions concerning the validity and enforceability of the sale deed, which were already pending determination in civil proceedings.

The Court found no sufficient factual basis showing that the petitioners had dishonestly or fraudulently induced the complainant at the inception of the transaction, nor any allegation establishing entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation so as to sustain Section 406 IPC.

Since the allegations predominantly constituted a civil dispute relating to title and validity of a registered sale deed, continuation of the criminal prosecution would amount to giving a criminal colour to a civil wrong and would fall within the principles stated in Bhajan Lal and the other cited authorities.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed the order dated 8 November 2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., West, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 486 of 2016, insofar as it related to the petitioners.

The application was accordingly allowed.