JUDGMENT : I.A. No.1340 of 2019 1. Heard the parties. 2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for grant of special leave under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to present this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs.2,50,000/- with a promise to return the same within six months and the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by the complainant to the accused and agreement was also executed on the same day. After lapse of six months, the complainant demanded his due amount but the accused person requested for another three months’ time to return the amount. After the extended period of three months, the complainant went to the house of the accused person and the accused person denied to return the money and threatened the complainant of dire consequences and also slapped him. Further, the accused person sold a piece of land to the wife of the complainant on 27.03.2008 for a total consideration amount of Rs.1,90,000/- but the accused later on, sold the land to some other person also and when the complainant went to the land for making boundary, the second purchaser of the land from the accused person prevented him from doing any construction over the land. 4. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself and his wife as C.W.1 and C.W.2 respectively. Both C.W.1 and C.W.2 supported the case of the complainant. 5. The learned trial court considered the fact that the complainant only filed a photocopy of the agreement allegedly entered into between the parties but the same was not admissible in evidence for failure to meet the requirements under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Further, it considered the original agreement filed by the accused person and named as ‘confirmation of sale’ marked Ext. A in para-3 of which it was mentioned that the delivery of possession of the land has been given to the purchaser or transferee and the complainant while being examined as C.W.1 has also admitted this fact in para-8 of his cross-examination. A in para-3 of which it was mentioned that the delivery of possession of the land has been given to the purchaser or transferee and the complainant while being examined as C.W.1 has also admitted this fact in para-8 of his cross-examination. The trial court also considered the fact that the complainant failed to prove the fact that subsequently the appellant sold the land in question to any another person as no documentary proof of same in support of that could be produced by the complainant. The learned trial court also considered the fact that as the complainant could not establish the dishonest intention or any act of malice on the part of the accused person, hence, it acquitted the accused person of the charge punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code so far as it relates to cheating regarding selling of land in question is concerned. So far as the charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code regarding not paying back the friendly loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant is concerned, the learned trial court considered that the photocopy of the money receipt could not be admitted in evidence for failing to meet the requirements of Section 65 of the Evidence Act and also as the complainant could not establish the dishonest intention of the accused person on the date of taking loan, if any, of not returning the said loan and acquitted the accused of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of not returning the friendly loan to the complainant. 6. So far as offence punishable under Section 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the trial court considered that neither of witnesses of the complainant has stated anything about any of the ingredients of the said charges and acquitted the accused person of the said charges as well. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take into consideration that the accused never denied that he took the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant and that the entire facts of the case show that the accused person had the intention of cheating and deceiving the complainant since the inception of the transaction. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take into consideration that the accused never denied that he took the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant and that the entire facts of the case show that the accused person had the intention of cheating and deceiving the complainant since the inception of the transaction. It is further submitted that the appellant has very good case to agitate in the appeal and unless special leave under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. is granted to present the appeal, the appellant will be prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the said leave be granted. 8. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to establish any of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code or the offences punishable under Section 323 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, on the failure of the complainant to establish any of the said charges against the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused person of the said charges. Hence, it is submitted that special leave to present this appeal ought not to be granted in this case. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the records, it is apparent that there is admission of C.W.1 in para-8 of his deposition that he was given the delivery possession of the land by the accused person for which he paid the consideration amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the accused person. It is crystal clear that the complainant could not substantiate his allegation that the accused has sold the land to anybody else as alleged in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that unless the complaint showed that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the complainant parted with the money it would not amount to an offence under Section 420, IPC and it may only amount to breach of contract as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others, AIR 1974 SC 301 and reiterated in paragraph -16 of the case of Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. reported (2003) 3 SCC 11 . In this case the complainant also failed to establish the intention of the accused in not returning the loan taken by him at the time of the said transaction and without any plausible reason, he could not produce the original money receipt showing that the accused person has taken the money from him and thus failed to meet the requirements of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. So far as charges for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, without any doubt neither of the two witnesses has stated anything about any hurt being caused or any threatening being made by the accused person. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. be granted to the appellant to present this appeal. 11. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application without any merit is dismissed and consequently this Acq. Appeal No.08 of 2019 is also dismissed.