LexDALIP KAUR & ORS. versus JAGNAR SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 264
A
DALIP KAUR & ORS.
....
v.
-
JAGNAR SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1135 of 2009)
JULY 7, 2009
B
(S.B. SINHA AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
'
Penal Code, 1860: s. 420 - Necessary ingredients -
Explained - On facts, FIR alleging cheating on account of
c breach of contract - Petition u/s.482 CrPC for quashing FIR
- Dismissed by High Cowt - On appeal, held: Breach of
contract would not constitute offence of cheating - Dispute
between the parties essentially civil in nature - High Court did
not apply its mind with regard to this aspect - Matter remitted
D to High Court for consideration afresh - Code of Criminal
..
Procedure, 1973 - s.482.
The appellant entered into an agreement for sale of
land with the respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 paid an
advance amount and also a further sum within 7 months
E from execution of sale agreement. The appellant
executed a deed of sale in favour of another person.
Appellant returned the advance amount to respondent
no.2 at the time of cancellation of agreement of sale and
promised to refund the balance amount received.
F Respondent no.2 lodged an FIR alleging fraud on the part
of appellant. Appellant filed petition for quashing the FIR
which was rejected.
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the
G allegations made in the FIR, even if taken to be correct
in its entirety, would not constitute an offence under
'
A
>
Section 406 and 420 IPC.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
•
H
264
DALIP KAUR & ORS. v. JAGNAR SINGH & ANR.
265
>
HELD: An offence of cheating would be constituted
A
when the accused has fraudulent or dishonest intention
-
at the time of making promise or representation. A pure
and simple: breach of contract does not constitute an
offence of cheating. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC .
are (i) deception of any persons; (ii) fraudulently or
B
dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property;
or (iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property
)
and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit
to do anything which he would not do or omit. The High
Court should have posed a question as to whether there c
was any act of inducement on the part of the appellant
and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat
;.;/
respondent 2 from the very inception. If the dispute
between the parties was essentially a civil dispute
resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the
appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the
D
same would not constitu,e an offence of cheating. Similar
is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal
breach of trust having regard to its· definition contained
in Section 405 IPC. As the High Court did not apply its
E
mind with regard to these aspects of the matter, the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained. [Paras 10, 12
and 14) [269-H; 270-A-E; 271-F)
t
Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 11; R. Kalyani
v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors. 2009 (1) SCC 516; Hira Lal & Ors.
F
v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 (5) SCALE 418; Harmanpreet
Singh Ahluwalia & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors: 2009 (7)
SCALE 85, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
G
~
(2003) 3 sec 11
relied on
Para 12
2009 (1) sec 516
relied on
Para 13
•
2009 (5) SCALE 418
relied on
Para 13
..
H
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 10 S.C.R.
A
2009 {7) SCALE 85
relied on
Para 13
"'
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
...
No. 1135 of 2009.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.08.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Misc. No. 44056-
M of 2007.
Sachin Jain and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellants.
c
Vivek Sharma and Chander Shekhar (for Temple Law
Firm) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
2. Whether breach of contract of an agreement for sale
would constitute an offence undc,· Section 406 or Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code is the question involved herein.
3. It arises in the following factual background:
E
Appellant is the owner of some agricultural lands. He
entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent No.2
agreeing to sell 13 acres of land at the rate of Rs.4, 70,000/-
per acre. Allegedly, respondent No.2 is said to be a property
F dealer. He paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards advance to the
appellant. A sum of Rs.14,20,000/-was furthermore paid to the
appellant withiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.