JUDGMENT P.N. Goel 1. This is a complainant's appeal against the order dated 29-6-1974 passed by Judicial Magistrate Nagina in criminal case no. 5 of 1964 acquitting Buddbu Singh respondent of the offences punishable under sees. 415, 417 and 420 IPC. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are thus : Buddhu Singh was sirdar of 4 Bigha, 3 Biswa and 5 Biswansis agricultural land in his village Tibri, Pargana Dhampur, Nagina, district Bijnor. On 3-4- 73, he executed an agreement of sale in favour of appellant Smt. Basanti Devi, wife of Amir Singh, resident of village Khanpur Manak, Pargana Nagina, district Bijnor for a sum of Rs. 4,500/-. He agreed that by depositing 20 times of the revenue he would acquire Bhumidhari rights within one and a half months. He further agreed that after having obtained Bhumidhari rights, he would execute sale deed in favour of the appellant within two months but he neither secured Bhumidhari rights nor executed sale deed in favour of the appellant. According to the appellant, she had paid Rs.4,500/- to the respondent before the registration of the agreement deed Ex. Ka 1 on 3-4-73. The appellant alleged that the respondent did not even repay her money. She further alleged that the respondent had dishonest intention and, therefore, he had not obtained the rights of a Bhumidhar, had not executed sale deed in her favour and had not returned her money. Defence of the respondent was that the appellant had not given her Rs. 4,500/- or any money and that, therefore, he did not secure Bhumidhari rights and did not execute sale deed in her favour. He denied the allegation that he had any dishonest intention in entering into the agreement with the appellant. 3. The appellant asserted that the respondent had agreed to sell his entire land measuring 4 Bighas, 3 Biswa and 5 Biswansis equivalent to 13 Bighas Kham. The respondent asserted that he had not agreed to sell his entire land and that he had agreed to sell only 2 Bighas land equivalent to 6 Bighas Kham. 4. On 7-8-1973 the respondent gave a notice to the appellant. In this notice he mentioned all the facts which he asserted in his defence. On 8-8- 1973 the appellant gave a notice on an inland letter saying that the respondent had agreed to sell 2 Bighas Pukhta land to her for Rs. 4. On 7-8-1973 the respondent gave a notice to the appellant. In this notice he mentioned all the facts which he asserted in his defence. On 8-8- 1973 the appellant gave a notice on an inland letter saying that the respondent had agreed to sell 2 Bighas Pukhta land to her for Rs. 4,500/- and that he did not execute the sale deed as agreed. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent. She examined herself, Ghasita and Amar Singh to prove her allegations. The respondent did not examine any witness in support of Ms defence. He, however, filed a copy of notice dated 7-8 -1973 and the notice of the appellant dated 8-8-1973. The appellant filed the registered agreement deed dated 3-4-1973. 5. On a consideration of the entire material before him the magistrate found that the appellant had not given Rs. 4,500/- to the respondent, that the appellant had come up with wrong allegations and that, therefore, the respondent was not guilty of any offence. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the material on record has been examined with their assistance. Narration of facts given above indicates that the parties are at variance mainly on two points-(1) Whether the respondent agreed to sell 13 Bighas Kham land or 6 Bighas Kham land, and (2) Whether the respondent received Rs. 4,500/-, the entire sale consideration, from the appellant before the registration of the agreement dated 3-4-1973. 7. On the first point, the appellant and her two witnesses stated that the respondent agreed to sell 13 Bighas Kham land. The appellant was confronted with her notice in which she. clearly stated that the respondent had agreed to sell 2 Bighas Pukhta land, i.e. 6 Bighas Kham land to her. She simply stated that she did not mention 6 Bighas Kham in the notice. This is in fact no explanation of her own admission contained in the notice. It is thus evident that the respondent had agreed to sell 6 Bighas Kham land and not 13 Bighas Kham. The registered agreement deed also clearly shows that the respondent agreed to sell only 2 Bigha Pukhta land to the appellant. 8. In view of the 2 documents on record, it is apparent that the complainant and her two witnesses have clearly perjured themselves and wrongly stated that the respondent agreed to sell 13 Bighas Kham land. The registered agreement deed also clearly shows that the respondent agreed to sell only 2 Bigha Pukhta land to the appellant. 8. In view of the 2 documents on record, it is apparent that the complainant and her two witnesses have clearly perjured themselves and wrongly stated that the respondent agreed to sell 13 Bighas Kham land. On the second point, there is the positive evidence of all the three witnesses, i. e. the complainant and her two witnesses that the sum of Rs. 4,500/- was given to the respondent one day before the execution and registration of the agreement deed. The agreement deed was executed on 3-4-1973 and registered on the same day. In this agreement it was recited that the entire sale consideration had been obtained as earnest money. Before the Sub-Registrar the respondent admitted that he had already received the consideration of Rs. 4.500/-. Against these recitals there is the statement of the respondent that he had not received Rs. 4,500/-from the appellant. The agreement deed does not show that the sum in question was given to the respondent a day before the execution of the agreement deed. The notice dated 8 -8-1973 sent by the appellant shows that the sum of Rs. 4,500/- was given to the respondent at the time of the registration of the agreement. Taking into consideration the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar and the assertion made in the notice it appears that according to the appellant a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was given to the respondent on the date of the execution of the agreement. This clearly contradicts the evidence of the appellant and her witnesses that the sum of Rs.4,500/-was given to the respondent one day before the execution of the agreement. This contradiction leads to the conclusion that in fact no amount was paid by the appellant to the respondent. 9. The result of the above findings is that the appellant cannot be said to have been cheated by the respondent; 10. There is another aspect of the matter. The appellant stated in chief examination that the respondent cheated her because he did not deposit 20 times of the revenue to obtain the rights of a Bhumidhar, that he did not execute sale deed in her favour and that he did not return her money. This statement shows that the respondent committed breach of the terms of the agreement. The appellant stated in chief examination that the respondent cheated her because he did not deposit 20 times of the revenue to obtain the rights of a Bhumidhar, that he did not execute sale deed in her favour and that he did not return her money. This statement shows that the respondent committed breach of the terms of the agreement. It is apparent that the agreement is of a civil nature. If any party commits breach of the terms of an agreement or contract aggrieved party has a remedy i. e. to recover damages by bringing a civil suit. Every breach of contract does not attract criminal liability. In order to prove an offence of cheating the complainant should prove something more than merely the breach of the terms of the agreement. Sec. 415 IPC defines term "cheating'' in this way-"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, is said to cheat." Words "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" have been defined in sees. 24 and 25 of the Indian Penal Code. Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do the thing "dishonestly". A person is said to do a thing 'fraudulently' if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. In order to constitute an offence of cheating the complainant must prove that the offender had an intention to defraud. If a person agrees to sell his property to another for a certain sum of money, it does not necessarily mean that he had an intention to defraud even though; he later on commits breach of the terms of the agreement. The complainant must prove or indicate circumstances to show the mens rea constituting the offence of cheating. In the present case the appellant has barely alleged that the respondent had committed breach of the terms of the agreement. She has not proved the required mens-rea. In this aspect of the matter, the respondent cannot be said to be guilty of the offence of cheating. If all the allegations of the appellant are taken as true her remedy is to bring a civil action. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.