Advocate cannot be held liable for cheating solely for drafting a sale agreement that failed to materialize.

The petitioner, an Advocate, drafted two sale agreements on 02.02.2011 for land bearing Khasra Nos. 658 and 659 in Village Pandripaani between the sellers (co-accused) and the complainant (Respondent No. 2)

The complainant alleged that the petitioner assured the registration of the sale deed and obtained ₹4,70,000/- for payment to the sellers, but instead facilitated the sale to other persons

Consequently, a charge sheet was filed under Section 420/34 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagdalpur, framed charges on 30.11.2015, which was subsequently upheld by the Second Additional Session Judge in Criminal Revision No. 02/2016 on 30.01.2016

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash these proceedings.

1. Whether the allegations against the petitioner prima facie constitute an offence of cheating or if the dispute is essentially civil in nature

2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the Advocate/petitioner amount to an abuse of the process of law

Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 10 SCC 663, which established that civil liabilities cannot be converted into criminal proceedings

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., which provide that a complaint may be quashed if the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence or are patently absurd

The Court observed that the sale agreements expressly acknowledged the receipt of advance payments by the sellers, not the petitioner

There was no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that the petitioner, acting as an Advocate, personally received the transaction amount

The Court noted a significant delay of 2.5 years in filing the complaint, suggesting an attempt to use criminal machinery to recover money paid to sellers from the drafting Advocate

The Court reasoned that since the essential ingredients of cheating were missing and the petitioner’s role was limited to professional drafting, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process as per the guidelines in Binod Kumar and Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1974/2014 and the revisional order dated 30.01.2016 with respect to the petitioner only

The trial Court was directed to continue proceedings against the other co-accused separately