Breach of land sale agreement without deceptive intent at inception constitutes civil dispute, not criminal offence.

The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that Opposite Party No. 2 (O.P. No. 2) entered into an agreement dated 21.02.2014 to sell 5 decimals of land for Rs. 5,05,000, receiving an advance of Rs. 1,50,000.

Instead of executing a sale deed, O.P. No. 2 executed a "Permanent Nadabi-Patra" (deed of no objection) on 07.09.2015 after receiving the balance amount, promising a future sale deed.

The petitioner further alleged that on 16.10.2016, O.P. No. 2 assaulted him, threatened him with dire consequences, demanded an additional Rs. 3,00,000 to transfer the land (which had reportedly been sold to a third party), and committed theft of a gold chain and cash.

The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, dismissed the complaint on 18.05.2017, viewing the matter as a civil breach of contract.

The petitioner subsequently filed this revision.

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint regarding the non-execution of the sale deed and retention of consideration money constitute criminal offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC or are purely civil in nature.

2. Whether the Trial Court committed an illegality or infirmity in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. after scrutinizing the inquiry evidence.

The court applied the principle that a mere breach of contract does not attract criminal liability under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) or 420 (Cheating) of the IPC unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the inception of the transaction.

The court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure to determine if the subordinate court's order was based on "unimpeachable evidence" or suffered from "illegality or infirmity".

The High Court examined the Trial Court’s findings, which were based on the inquiry witnesses' testimonies and the Notary agreement dated 21.02.2014.

The Court observed that despite allegations of assault, extortion, and theft, the inquiry conducted by the Trial Court failed to find sufficient grounds to proceed on these charges.

Regarding the financial transaction, the Court noted that the dispute arose from an agreement to sell land where a "Nadabi-Patra" was executed instead of a registered sale deed; such a failure to fulfill a contractual obligation is a "simple breach of agreement" and lacks the essential ingredients of forgery, fabrication, or criminal misappropriation.

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s recourse to criminal proceedings for a civil dispute could not be justified under law.

The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the Trial Court’s order and dismissed the Criminal Revision application.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and the concerned lower court was directed to be informed of the dismissal.