ORDER G.D. Kamat, J. - This is a petition under Section 48,2 Cr. P.C. challenging the order of the Magistrate which directs framing of the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Revision Application No. 18/92 taken against the order of the Judicial Magistrate instituted by the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Panaji on 4th August 1993. 2. The respondent No. 1 laid a complaint against the applicant that through the intervention of a friend of his, he contacted the applicant for purchase of a plot at Altinho, Panaji. According to the complaint plot No. 13 was recommended by the applicant which was situated close to an excavated, portion of the hill but the applicant represented to the respondent No. 1 that the plot was safe to construct a house by saying that the excavation was done 25 years ago and it was at a distance of 25 metres away from the plot. Plot No. 13 admeasures 281.75 square metres and the rate was fixed at Rs. 1200/- per square metre. The complainant states that applicant wanted 25% of the price in cash in the first instance and the balance to be paid either in cash or by cheque with a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- as and by way of earnest money. The respondent No. 1 says that he paid a sum of Rs. 84,525/- on 3 different dates and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 8.5.1987 by cheque. The writing was executed by which it was shown that the price of the land was Rs. 900/- per square metre. When asked by respondent No. 1 it is averred that the applicant represented that the balance payment will be at the rate of Rs. 900/- per square metre and the respondent No. 1 should thrust him as a gentleman in the transaction. Soon after the transaction on 1st July 1987 due to heavy rains there was a land slide about 19 metres away from the plot. When applicant was contacted in the company of Ex - Chief Engineer, P.W.D., a demand was made for return of the entire amount of Rs. 94,525/-. Soon after the transaction on 1st July 1987 due to heavy rains there was a land slide about 19 metres away from the plot. When applicant was contacted in the company of Ex - Chief Engineer, P.W.D., a demand was made for return of the entire amount of Rs. 94,525/-. The applicant, according to the complainant, initially showed sympathy for respondent No. 1 but held out that as the amount had been distributed among the co - owners, he would contact them and at the same time suggest to the respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 1 could take plot No. 6 at the reduced rate. Some correspondence ensued between the parties and the applicant refused to return anything beyond Rs. 10,000/- saying that that was the only amount he received from the respondent No. 1. According to the respondent No. 1 there was an agreement that in case the respondent No. 1 was not able to construct a house for no fault of his, the applicant would refund the entire amount of Rs. 94,525/- and the agreement had come into being upon that representation. 3. When process was issued in the complaint by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the same was challenged before the Sessions Judge, who by the order dated 19th May 1989 rejected the Criminal Revision Application. The applicant did not rest content and filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. before this Court, which was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court on and August 1989. 4. After hearing the evidence before the charge the learned Judge felt that there is a case made out by the respondent No. 1 for framing a charge. As mentioned earlier the revision against such order has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge at Panaji on 4th August 1993 and that is how the applicant is in this Court. 5. Shri Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicant, says that even upon acceptance of the complaint and the evidence at its face value and without looking to the defence there is no case to frame a charge. 5. Shri Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicant, says that even upon acceptance of the complaint and the evidence at its face value and without looking to the defence there is no case to frame a charge. According to him it must be borne in mind that a civil suit instituted by the respondent No. 1 is already pending in the Court on the subject matter, secondly after the landslide admitted lyan offer was made by the applicant for alternative plot and thirdly the fact of landslide coupled with reduction in price for the alternate site insofar as the respondent No. 1 is concerned is not disputed. He, therefore, says that in the back ground of these facts no criminal offence is made out and there is no question of making the applicant to face a trial. 6. The next contention is that agreement of 9th May 1987 is for the sale of a plot and in the matter of transaction relating to sale, offences like cheating, criminal misappropriation or breach of trust do not arise and at the most the liability is of a civil nature. According to him the two Courts below have missed this vital aspect of the matter. In any case, according to the learned counsel, offence of criminal misappropriation is not attracted. 7. He relies upon the decision of State of Gujarat v. laswantlal Nathalal1, to suggest how entrustment has been viewed which is one of the ingredients of Section 405, I.P.C. and how the transaction of sale is kept out of the purview of such an offence. In the first place this decision was rendered by the Supreme Court against the order of acquittal made by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal instituted by the respondent Nathalal. The respondent had been convicted under Section 409 of the I.P.C. by the Magistrate. The facts were the Government of Gujarat gave on contract to Bharat Sewak Samaj the work of construction of a building for the Government litho-printing press. The Samaj gave the construction work on sub - contract to a firm known as M/s. Kaushik and Co. This firm consisted of two partners. The Samaj applied to the Deputy Engineer for allotment of 10 tons of cement for the construction work in question and the Deputy Engineer allotted 5 tons of cement, that is, 100 bags. The Samaj gave the construction work on sub - contract to a firm known as M/s. Kaushik and Co. This firm consisted of two partners. The Samaj applied to the Deputy Engineer for allotment of 10 tons of cement for the construction work in question and the Deputy Engineer allotted 5 tons of cement, that is, 100 bags. Upon taking delivery of 100 bags respondent Nathalal delivered at the work site only 60 bags and remaining 40 bags were sent to the go down of one Jiwaji. Question arose whether upon these facts Nathalal can be held to have committed breach of trust in respect of 40 cement bags. Defence was that 40 bags of cement had been used in the construction belonging to the firm and that is how equivalent 40 bags of cement were sent to the godown of Jiwaji. On facts admitted and proved it was held that with the sale of cement in question the Government had lost its proprietary right over the same nor such transaction could be said to have resulted in any fiduciary relationship between the Government and Samaj or the Government and Nathalal. The Samaj had not made any complaint against respondent Nathalal. Upon viewing the expression "entrustment" found in Section 405, I.P.C. the Supreme Court observed that that expression carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or in whose behalf that property is handed over to another continues to be its owner. A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment. 8. The next authority relied upon is Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others2. In this case the High Court had quashed the proceedings under Section 561A of Cr. P.C. The facts were that appellant/complainant, who wanted to start some business, talked with the respondents, who agreed that they would start transport business in the name and style of 'Drang Transport Corporation' and that the appellant would be the proprietor of the said Corporation and the respondent would be his agents. After some time appellant found that respondents were doing transponder business but the appellants was not shown as its proprietor. At some stage the respondents agreed to show that the appellant was the proprietor thereof but went back on their commitment and further failed to render accounts. After some time appellant found that respondents were doing transponder business but the appellants was not shown as its proprietor. At some stage the respondents agreed to show that the appellant was the proprietor thereof but went back on their commitment and further failed to render accounts. The appellant made a demand for return of his money and upon failure filed a complaint against the respondents for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. When process under that Section was directed, it was challenged before the High Court and the High Court quashed the proceedings. The High Court held that the case of the appellant was based upon contract and mere breach of contract could not give rise to criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court upon examination of the complaint found that the respondents had no dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant paned with the money or that the respondents induced appellant to pay to them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him. 9. In the decision of Bheru Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and another3, the Rajasthan High Court held that mere breach of contract is not sufficient to constitute cheating; that there must be inducement made of the other party to pan with the money and secondly dishonest intention at the time the other party paned with the money. The taking of cognizance by the Magistrate under Sections 420, 406 and 468, I.P.C. were quashed. The facts in this case were the accused Bheru Singh had entered into an agreement to sell a house for the sum of Rs. 85,000/- in July 1980. A sum of Rs. 9,000/- was received by Bheru Singh as earnest money and a document was executed. It was agreed that the house would be got vacated from the tenants and Sale Deed would be done by 10.12.1980 by receiving the remaining amount of Rs. 76,000/- and delivering the possession of the house to the complainant As the house could not e got vacated Bheru Singh again executed an agreement in favour of the complainant agreeing 10 deliver the possession and got the sale deed registered by 30.4.1981 and despite tenant varated the house agreement was not executed and possession was not handed over to the complainant. 10. 10. In the decision of Asit Das v. Jagadish Chandra Saha and another4 for considering whether the offences under Sections 403 and 420, I.P.C. have made out or not a case of criminal misappropriation or of deceit the Court hold that upon evidence all that has been established is refusal on the part of the petitioner (1) to perform his part of the contract and (2) to repay the money that had been received. The Court observed that the liability that arises in either case is civil in nature and the consequential right may be enforced only through the civil procedure. The Court further observed neither breach of contract refusal to repay simplicities gives rise to any criminal liability. 11. Shri Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicant, seeks to make a distinction insofar as the decision of Abdul Hamid v. Juman5 is concerned. The point of distinction, according to him, is that the money had been paid to buy a sewing machine but from a third person. 12. Shri Usgaonkar urged that the date of the agreement is important and even if at a future date a party has changed its mind that may only give rise to a breach of contract and not amount to criminal liability. He, therefore, says that on application of the ratio of the aforementioned decisions which have been ignored by the two Courts, below, this Court ought to quash the proceedings and also the direction for framing charge. 13. Petition has been vehemently opposed by Mrs. Albuquerque, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 original complainant. According to her it must be seen in the first place that the applicant challenged the issuance of process before the Sessions Court and upon rejection of the revision took up a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. The learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the said petition on 22nd August 1989. She now says that this is the second attempt of challenging the direction of framing charge, first before the Sessions Court and upon rejection before this Court. She, therefore, says that the whole attempt appears to be to delay the proceedings, which commenced upon a complaint in the year 1988. 14. She now says that this is the second attempt of challenging the direction of framing charge, first before the Sessions Court and upon rejection before this Court. She, therefore, says that the whole attempt appears to be to delay the proceedings, which commenced upon a complaint in the year 1988. 14. Placing reliance upon the decision of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh6, she says in the matter of discharge or framing of charges the Supreme Court has held that there cannot weighing of the case in great detail or in a sensitive scale at the stage of deciding the matter under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C. 15. Mrs. Albuquerque now points out that this is not a case where sale transaction has already been completed so as to give rise to civil liability. She says that the respondent No. 1 complainant has proved that a sum of Rs. 845251/- is being held in trust by the applicant in addition to Rs. 10,000/- as and by way of earnest money. She then points out that in the correspondence and even before the Magistrate the applicant has denied the receipt of Rs. 84,525/-. She, therefore, says that when in such circumstances the Courts below have held that there is material for framing charge, it is not open to the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings. 16. It may be true that in a fit case criminal proceedings can be quashed upon a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. but then the parameters of such jurisdiction is circumscribed. As rightly put at the stage of framing of the charge there is no question of looking to the defence and evidence cannot be weighed in greater detail and that too with a sensitive scale. The story here is that the applicant held out the price to be Rs. 1,200/- per square metre and after receipt of 25% of the price in cash held put in the agreement that the price for plot No. 13 would be shown at Rs. 900/- per square metre. He however, acknowledged in writing the receipt of earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- but nowhere the receipt of Rs. 84525/- is mentioned. 1,200/- per square metre and after receipt of 25% of the price in cash held put in the agreement that the price for plot No. 13 would be shown at Rs. 900/- per square metre. He however, acknowledged in writing the receipt of earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- but nowhere the receipt of Rs. 84525/- is mentioned. The Courts below have accepted the veracity of the case of the complainant prima facie and believed Shri Albuquerque, retired Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Goa, in whose presence the talk about this amount of Rs. 84525/- had been accepted. The two Courts below have laid great stress that such amount was prima facie held in trust in anticipation of sale and that way held that charge is necessary to be framed. I do not think that any interference is necessary in the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Accordingly, this petition is rejected. 17. At the stage Shri V.P. Thali, learned Counsel for the applicant, requests that this order be stayed for a period of 4 weeks. Request granted and accordingly order is stayed for a period of 4 weeks. Petition dismissed. 1. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 700. 2. A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 301. 3. 1985(2) Crimes 394 . 4. 1986(3) Crimes 143 . 5. A.I.R. 1950 All. 365. 6. A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018.