MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc.Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.212/2014 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be reigstered at the instance of respondent-complainant against the petitioner on 08.05.2014 on the premise that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent to purchase a vehicle and against the sale price of the vehicle the petitioner paid Rs.1,22,600/- and for remaining amount of sale price he gave cheque dated 10.04.2014 for Rs.5,90,000/-, on which the vehicle was handed over to petitioner but the aforesaid cheque on being presented for encashment dishonoured by the reason that sufficient funds were not available in the bank account for which the cheque was issued. It is further case of the respondent that the petitioner did not make payment of the remaining amount despite the fact that demands were made several times.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if for the sake of arguments allegations made in the FIR are accepted on their fave value and are taken to be true and correct in its entirety, even then at the most it is a case of breach of contract on the part of the petitioner, but only by that reason criminal liability of any kind cannot be fastened upon him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner for an offence to be made out under Section 420 IPC, well settled legal position is that fraudulent and dishonest intention to deceive some person on the part of accused is to be disclosed at the time when promise or representation was made and offence under this provision cannot be made out merely because the accused failed to keep his promise or representation lateron. According to learned counsel for the petitioner it is a pure and simple case of breach of contract of sale which does not constitute offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. According to him for an offence to be made out under Section 406 IPC, it is essential to show that some property was entrusted to the accused and he converted it for his own use, but in the present case no such allegation has been made by the complainant himself. It was contended that merely because the petitioner obtained a vehicle from the respondent in pursuance of agreement to sell after paying a part of sale consideration and he lateron failed to make payment of the remaining amount, it cannot be said that he has deceived the respondent or committed offence of criminal breach of trust.