DEVIA RAM Vs. L RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. with the prayer that the criminal proceedings pending against the accused applicants in the Court of Sub-Judge Magistrate first class Jammu be quashed. The following facts have given rise to this application:

(2.) THE above analysis of the facts of the case would make it clear that the whole affair is a case of breach of contract, pure and simple. Breaches seem to have been made both by the complainant and the accused.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the complainant (Non-applicant) has argued that since the accused persons had received money from the complainant with no intention to carry out the terms of the agreement, it was a clear case of cheating. But the learned Counsel has forgotten that a preconceived intention of not carrying out the terms of an agreement has to be established and not to be presumed from the mere receipt of money and not working subsequently according to the terms of the agreement. Mere receipt of money would not be cheating unless it is shown that it was received with the preconceived intention of denying it later on. If the intention is changed subsequently it would not be cheating. In - Sheosagar Pandey v. Emperor 159 Ind Cas 167 (1) (Pat) (A) it has been held that: