The Gauhati High Court has quashed a cheating case under IPC 420, arising from an alleged breach of a land sale agreement, ruling that a mere contractual violation does not amount to a criminal offense unless fraudulent intent is present from the outset.
Key Observations
The court clarified that for an offense under Section 420 (cheating) and Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC, there must be evidence of fraudulent misappropriation or dishonest intent at the time of making the promise.
Case Background
- The complainant sought to buy a plot of land and made an advance payment of ₹2,00,000 to the accused in March 2016.
- When the sale did not materialize, he issued a legal notice and later filed a case alleging fraud.
- The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) took cognizance of the charges in August 2018.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found that:
1. No evidence suggested fraudulent intent at the start of the transaction.
2. The accused had offered to return the money, indicating the dispute was civil rather than criminal.
3. A civil breach of trust does not automatically constitute criminal liability.
Final Verdict
The court set aside the Magistrate’s order and quashed the entire case, reaffirming that contractual disputes should be handled in civil courts unless there is clear evidence of fraud.
Key Takeaways
Fraudulent intent must exist from the start for cheating charges to hold.
Civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases to pressure the accused.
Legal remedies for breach of contract lie in civil courts, not criminal prosecution.
This ruling reinforces the distinction between civil and criminal liability, preventing the misuse of criminal law in contractual disputes.
