Facts
The petitioners (wife and son of late Uttam Kumar Singh and two others) sought to quash an order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the ACJM-1st Class, Danapur, which took cognizance of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC.
Source reference: p. 1-2The Complainant (O.P. No. 2) alleged that in 2014, Uttam Kumar Singh received ₹1,21,15,000 as consideration for a land transfer.
Source reference: p. 2The Complainant alleged that the accused later demanded "black money" for the balance, and when refused, sold the land to others without executing a deed or returning the money, suggesting a conspiracy to cheat.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioners contended that the money was a personal loan since repaid in phases, evidenced by bank statements, and pointed out that no written agreement to sale ever existed.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the failure to honour a purported oral agreement for the sale of land constitutes criminal offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC.
Source reference: p. 5/para. 82. Whether the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of the court when the received amount has been returned and no forged documents are identified.
Source reference: p. 7/para. 11Law Applied
The court applied the principle that a breach of contract does not automatically constitute cheating or a criminal offence unless dishonest intention existed at the inception.
Source reference: p. 5Reliance on Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699, holding that failure to honour an agreement to sell is not inherently criminal.
Source reference: p. 5The court cited Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh (2009) 14 SCC 696 regarding the distinction between civil and criminal liability.
Source reference: p. 3Reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, which permits quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the allegations do not disclose the commission of an offence.
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The Court observed that the Complainant admitted to receiving the repayment of ₹1,21,15,000 in his account.
Source reference: p. 4, 7-8It noted the total absence of any written agreement or "even a chit of paper" to substantiate a contract for sale.
Source reference: p. 5The Court reasoned that even if an oral agreement existed, the subsequent failure to perform the terms does not constitute a criminal offence, especially since the petitioners’ predecessor had legal title and competence to transfer the property to third parties.
Source reference: p. 5-6Crucially, while the Magistrate took cognizance of forgery-related offences (Sec. 467, 468, 471 IPC), the impugned order failed to identify any specific forged document or provide a basis for such a finding.
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The Court held that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not met and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.
The Court answered that a mere breach of a sale agreement, particularly where the money was returned, does not attract criminal liability.
Source reference: p. 8The Court allowed the application and quashed the impugned order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the ACJM-1st Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 210(C).
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
SHOBHA SINGHvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in