Informed acceptance of the premises negates the deception required for Section 418 IPC.

Respondent No. 2 and his brother alleged that the petitioners, in a redevelopment project, induced them to surrender two existing galas by promising alternate premises totalling 710 sq. ft. They received two shops and an area described in the parties’ documents as “garage/stilt”; the dispute arose after the municipal authority issued a notice concerning the use and enclosure of the stilt area.

The Magistrate issued process against the petitioners under Section 418 read with Section 34 IPC, and the Sessions Court dismissed their revision challenging that order.

The petitioners sought to quash those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the complaint and accompanying material disclosed the ingredients of cheating under Section 418 IPC against the petitioners.

Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed where the complainant’s own documents and conduct indicated knowledge of, and acceptance of, the premises and sanctioned plans.

Section 418 IPC applies where a person cheats while knowing that wrongful loss is likely to be caused to someone whose interests in the relevant transaction the accused is bound, by law or legal contract, to protect; the court identified this as requiring both cheating and the relevant duty to protect.

Section 482 CrPC permits the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; the court applied the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

Relying on Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 641, and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the court stressed the complainant’s duty to place material facts before the court and the Magistrate’s duty to apply judicial mind before issuing process.

The court acknowledged Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society, AIR 2010 SC 3607, on stilt areas not constituting garages for the purposes of MOFA, but distinguished it on the facts because the premises here were allotted as alternate accommodation in redevelopment and not sold separately.

The court found that the complainant and his brother had signed an undertaking confirming that they had inspected and verified the sanctioned plans and accepted the shops and “garage/stilt” as being in accordance with the agreement; they later sought to alter the stilt area and connect it to the shops.

The court considered these documents, along with subsequent transfer documents, inconsistent with the allegation that the petitioners had concealed the nature of the premises or dishonestly induced the complainants.

It also found that material documents had not been disclosed in the complaint and that the dispute, at most, appeared contractual; on the record before it, the necessary elements of Section 418—including the relevant duty to protect the complainants’ interests—were not made out.

It allowed the petition and granted the relief sought in prayer clause (c), quashing the challenged criminal proceedings.