Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2820 (PNJ)

Harmandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

2023-09-20

PANKAJ JAIN

body2023
Judgment Mr. Pankaj Jain, J. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 26 dated 12.6.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station NRI, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. 2. The F.I.R was registered on the complaint made by Manjit Singh Gill-respondent No. 2, who alleged as under :- “At present a complaint UID No.1840601 dated 30.07.2020 from Manjit Singh Gill son of Sikandar Singh resident of House No.3362, Street No.04, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana presently resident of America against Baljit Singh son of Teja Singh resident of Village Nanakpur Jagera, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana and Harmandeep Kaur d/o Sohan Singh resident of Village Khasi Khurd presently resident of America, has been received in the Police Station for registration of case, the contents of which are, To, The Hon’ble Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. 2. SHO Police Station NRI, Ludhiana. Subject: Application for registration of the FIR under Section 406, 420, 120-B, 506 IPC against Harmandeep Kaur d/o S.Sohan Singh Pandher resident of Khasi Khurd, PO Kadiana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana at present resident of 1363 Danielle DR, Indiaapolic, IN 46231 No.317-500-1430 and Baljit Singh son of Late S.Teja Singh resident of Nanakpur Jageda,, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana and present address 1363 Danielle DR, Indiaapolic, IN 46231 No.317-500-1430 for breach of trust, committing fraud with the complainant of USA, Mobile Rs.4,70,000/- threatening to complainant and giving life R/Sir, The complainant submits as under:- 1.That the complainant is peace loving and law abiding citizen of India. 2.That the complainant got married with the accused according to Sikh Rites at Sunrise Farm, Ludhiana on dated 08.12.2013. That No.1 namely Harmandeep Kaur 3. Out of this wedlock one female child namely Jennifer was born. 4. That after the few days of the marriage, the know that complainant came No.1 Harmandeep Kaur is very short tempered lady. Complainant and his family members on petty to the accused. She used to quarrel with the matters. 5.That after few months accused No.1 Harmandeep Kaur has shifted to USA. After that the complainant also moved to USA in the year 2015. In USA the complainant noted that there is no change in the behavior of the Harmandeep Kaur, started daily quarrel with the complainant on the petty matters without any rhyme and accused No.1. She again reasons. 6. After that the complainant also moved to USA in the year 2015. In USA the complainant noted that there is no change in the behavior of the Harmandeep Kaur, started daily quarrel with the complainant on the petty matters without any rhyme and accused No.1. She again reasons. 6. That the accused No.1 filed a divorce case against the complainant in the court of USA and on the other hand accused No.2 Baljit Singh grand material father of the accused complainant No.1 moved false against the complainant and his family members in police station NRI, Ludhiana. He also filed a Writ Petition against the family members in Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Complainant and his 7. That with the intervention of the respectable of the society and relatives, the matter has been compromised between the accused No.1 the complainant. On the behalf of the complainant, the father of the complainant matter and on the other hand on the behalf the was appointed to settle the of father was authorized to settle the matter. The compromise has been written in black & white on dated 01.10.2019 accused No.1, her grand maternal As per norms & conditions of the compromise the father of the Rs.4,70,000/- to Singh And Baljit Singh will Writ petition as in Police Station NRI, Ludhiana against the complainant and his family members. It is pertinent to mention that the will also withdraw the proceeding against the cheque No.2 Baljit withdraw the well as complaint pending complainant will give accused a of the accused No.1 complainant which was pending in USA Court as per the terms conditions compromise of the. 8. That according to the compromise dated 01.10.2019, the father of gave a cheque bearing cheque No.000013 dated 21.10.2019 of amount Rs.4,70,000/- of Punjab New Janta Nagar, Bank, the accused No.2 Baljit Singh and Sind Branch Ludhiana and he presented the cheque in his bank account and get honore the cheque on dated 31.10.2019 and after that the accused No.2 withdraw the Writ petition as well as complaint against the complainant and his family members. 9. 9. That it is pertinent to mention here that as to the compromise the proceeding of the accused No.1 had not per withdrawn pending before the Court of USA, rather she case which is demanding in started more from money withdraw the complainant proceeding of case which is pending in the court of USA, whereas, his family members honoured the terms conditions of the above said compromise, lieu of the complainant and & 10. That accused No.2 in connivance moreover, the with accused No.1 prepared the valuation of the property of the parents of false the complainant which is situated at Ludhiana and same was submitted in the court of USA by the accused No.1 & 2 only to grab complainant threats and now the more money from the giving complainant and his family members to kill accused persons to them. So, in this way the accused No.1 and 2 has committed the fraud with the complainant and his family members. As the compromise has been executed at Ludhiana and cheque was also handed over to the accused No.2 at Ludhiana and Ludhiana police has full jurisdiction to the complaint of the complainant, entertain. It is breach of trust, committing the fraud with the complainant and giving life threatening to the complainant and his family members. Note: all the relevant documents and proofs are attached herewith. Dated: Applicant Ludhiana, Manjit Singh son of S.Sikandar Singh Gill r/o No.3362, New Janta Nagar, House Street No.4, Gill Road, Ludhiana at present 2916 of e.main street Plainfield. In 46168 USA 98153-17536. The above complainant was received by SHO, PS NRI Ludhiana for inquiry. During inquiry, SHO, PS NRI, Ludhiana joined both the parties and obtained statements and documents, which are attached for perusal, from which it has been found that complainant Manjit Singh Gill have two sons. The marriage of his younger son Manjit Singh was solemnized with respondent Harmandeep Kaur d/o Sohan Singh resident of Village Khasi Khurd, Ludhiana, presently NRI America in the year 2013. Thereafter both had gone to America. The marriage of his younger son Manjit Singh was solemnized with respondent Harmandeep Kaur d/o Sohan Singh resident of Village Khasi Khurd, Ludhiana, presently NRI America in the year 2013. Thereafter both had gone to America. There in America, dispute arose between complainant Manjit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur due to which respondent Harmandeep Kaur filed a divorce case against complainant Manjit Singh and also filed complaint against complainant Manjit Singh and his family at NRI Wing, regarding which a Panchayati compromise was entered on 01.10.2019 between Baljit Singh, grand maternal father of Harmandeep Kaur from side of Harmandeep Kaur and Sikandar Singh on behalf of his son Manjit Singh in presence of respectable persons, that whatever cases, complaint or writ have been filed by Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur in India and abroad America, would be withdrawn. In lieu of the expenditure at the time of marriage, Sikandar Singh father of the complainant Manjit Singh would give Rs.4,70,000/- to respondent party Harmandeep Kaur. That on 01.10.2019 itself in the presence of respectable persons, father of the complainant, Sikandar Singh had given a cheque amounting to Rs.4,70,000/ to Baljit Singh. The daughter of Manjit Singh namely Jennifer aged bout 5 years would remain with both the parties as per the rules in America. The respondent Harmandeep Kaur would be responsible to withdraw the cases filed by her against complainant Manjit Singh in America before 24.10.2019, but later on, despite receiving of Rs.4,70,000/- Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur did not withdraw the case filed in America and respondent Baljit Singh, by not giving the correct information of the property in the name of complainant Manjit Singh in India, got high evaluation from Amandeep Singh, Architect of M.S. Aman Associate, Doraha for embassy purpose to go abroad i.e. Rs.01 Crore 25 lacs 30 thousands), had used for legal purpose in the Court at America, whereas as per government DC Rate, on evaluation by Sikandar Singh father of the complainant, the price of above land comes to Rs.35 lacs 85 thousands, regarding which the statement of Architect Amandeep Singh is attached for perusal, due to which in the decision taken by the Court at America, Manjit Singh has been ordered to pay a huge amount to Harmandeep Kaur from his property in America. Conclusion Report: During inquiry it has come into light that despite receiving Rs.4,70,000/- by respondent party Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur, did not withdraw the case against Manjit Singh in America and respondent Baljit Singh by not giving the correct information of the property in the name of complainant Manjit Singh in India, got high evaluation from Amandeep Singh, Architect of M.S. Aman Associate, Doraha for embassy purpose to go abroad i.e. Rs.01 Crore 25 lacs 30 thousands), had used for legal purpose in the Court at America, whereas as per government DC Rate, on evaluation by Sikandar Singh father of the complainant, the price of above land comes to Rs.35 lacs 85 thousands, regarding which the statement of Architect Amandeep Singh is attached for perusal, due to which in the decision taken by the Court at America, Manjit Singh has been ordered to pay a huge amount to Harmandeep Kaur from his property in America. Copy of the order passed in America is attached for perusal. The complainant Manjit Singh has suffered a huge loss due to order passed in America, as such for taking appropriate legal action against respondent party Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur, legal opinion from Law Officer is required to be obtained. Recommendation: If approve, then the report be sent to Law Officer for obtaining legal opinion. Sd/- SHO, PS NRI, Ludhiana City. That the above inquiry report was sent by SHO, PS NRI, Ludhiana to higher officer vide letter No.53- 5A dated 12.01.2021 upon which Deputy Superintendent of Police NRI Wing Ludhiana vide his letter No.366-5A dated 20.02.2021 and AIG/NRI Wing Ludhiana vide letter No.427- 5A dated 26.02.2021 agreeing to the report, forwarded to Hon’ble ADGP/NRI Wing, Mohali, who forwarded the same to Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation NRI Wing, SAS Nagar for obtaining legal opinion. That Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation NRI Wing, SAS Nagar vide letter No.121-JDP/NRI dated 31.3.2021 raised the following objections on the report: 1) After the decision in the case regarding dispute between complainant Manjit Singh Gill and respondent Harmandeep Kaur, whether any appeal has been filed or not, this may be cleared and copy of same be attached. 2) What are the concrete evidence against respondent Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Singh for cheating in individual capacity, same may be cleared. 2) What are the concrete evidence against respondent Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Singh for cheating in individual capacity, same may be cleared. 3) The respondent Harmandeep Kaur is leveling allegation against complainant that he did not compromise in the case pending the Court in abroad, this may also be clarified in the inquiry. 4) As per the decision taken in the compromise between both the parties, whether respondent party Harmandeep Kaur etc. is ready to return the amount received or not, it may be clarified (5) The compromise which took place in India, what are the views of the respectable persons who were witnesses to the said compromise, it may also be clarified 6) The copies of the writ petition, present status, reply, order passed by the Hon’ble Court in the writ petition filed by both the parties in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court may be attached. 7) Keeping in view the above facts, the above objections may be removed during inquiry of the complaint and after considering above objections, the self-explanatory report may be submitted regarding the complaint Sd/- Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation NRI Wing, SAS Nagar. Upon which, SHO, NRI, vide letter No.418-5A dated 21.04.2021 has complied to the point-wise objections as under:- 1. After the decision of the case pending in America regarding dispute between complainant Manjit Singh Gill and respondent Harmandeep Kaur, complainant has not filed any appeal. 2. Despite receiving of Rs.4,70,000/- Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur did not withdraw the case filed in America and respondent Baljit Singh, by not giving the correct information of the property in the name of complainant Manjit Singh in India, got high evaluation from Amandeep Singh, Architect of M.S. Aman Associate, Doraha for embassy purpose to go abroad i.e. Rs.01 Crore 25 lacs 30 thousands), had used for legal purpose in the Court at America, whereas as per government DC Rate, on evaluation by Sikandar Singh father of the complainant, the price of above land comes to Rs.35 lacs 85 thousands, due to which in the decision taken by the Court at America, Manjit Singh has been ordered to pay a huge amount to Harmandeep Kaur from his property in America. As such respondent party Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur have played fraud with the complainant Manjit Singh. As such respondent party Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur have played fraud with the complainant Manjit Singh. 3) The complainant Manjit Singh had stated the compromise taken place in India, as correct in the Court at America, but it is the Harmandeep Kaur, who backed out from said compromise entered into in India. 4. During inquiry, respondent Harmandeep Kaur or Baljit Singh had never mentioned about returning of amount received by them as per the compromise entered into in India and now on asking by the complainant, have mentioned for not taking back the above amount and regarding legal action against respondent party. 5. Regarding the statements of respectable persons, who were the witnesses to the Panchayati compromise taken place in India, the same were already obtained in the inquiry, which are attached at Pages No.43 to 53 for perusal, who have also mentioned about the backing out from Panchayati compromise by the respondent party and playing fraud by them. 6. Respondent Baljit Singh had filed a Writ Petition No.25616 of 2019 before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh for non-action on the complaint filed by Harmandeep Kaur against Manjit Singh bearing UID No.1546988 dated 24.04.2019, in which the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Fatehdeep Singh ordered to file the status report vide order dated 25.09.2019 and fixed the next date as 20.11.2019. Regarding which status report was filed on 05.11.2019. Due to compromise about above complaint between both the parties on 01.10.2019, Baljit Singh withdrew the said writ petition vide Writ Petition No.34841 of 2019 which has been dismissed on 14.11.2019, regarding which the copies of writ, status report, orders are attached for perusal. 7. Regarding which status report was filed on 05.11.2019. Due to compromise about above complaint between both the parties on 01.10.2019, Baljit Singh withdrew the said writ petition vide Writ Petition No.34841 of 2019 which has been dismissed on 14.11.2019, regarding which the copies of writ, status report, orders are attached for perusal. 7. Despite receiving of Rs.4,70,000/- Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur did not withdraw the case filed in America and respondent Baljit Singh, by not giving the correct information of the property in the name of complainant Manjit Singh in India, got high evaluation from Amandeep Singh, Architect of M.S. Aman Associate, Doraha for embassy purpose to go abroad i.e. Rs.01 Crore 25 lacs 30 thousands), had used for legal purpose in the Court at America, whereas as per government DC Rate, on evaluation by Sikandar Singh father of the complainant, the price of above land comes to Rs.35 lacs 85 thousands, due to which in the decision taken by the Court at America, Manjit Singh has been ordered to pay a huge amount to Harmandeep Kaur from his property in America and he has suffered a huge loss from which the fraud played by respondent Baljit Singh Harmandeep Kaur with complainant Manjit Singh comes into light. Sd/ SHO, PS NRI, Ludhiana City. After the verification by SHO, PS NRI Ludhiana by SHO, PS NRI Ludhiana City, was sent to higher officers, upon which Deputy Superintendent of Police/NRI Wing Ludhiana vide letter No.622-5A dated 26.04.2021 and AIG/NRI Wing Ludhiana vide letter No.840/5A dated 04.05.2021, agreeing with the report, was sent to ADGP/NRI Wing, who forwarded the same to Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation NRI Wing, SAS Nagar. That Joint Director, Prosecution and Litigation NRI Wing, SAS Nagar vide letter No.186-JDP/NRI dated 24.05.2021 opined in his opinion that on the basis of inquiry report of AIG/NRI, Ludhiana and from the relevant record, it has come into light that respondent party Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur, despite receiving of Rs.4,70,000/- did not withdraw the case filed in America and respondent Baljit Singh, by not giving the correct information of the property in the name of complainant Manjit Singh in India, got high evaluation from Amandeep Singh, Architect of M.S. Aman Associate, Doraha for embassy purpose to go abroad i.e. Rs.01 Crore 25 lacs 30 thousands), had used for legal purpose in the Court at America, whereas as per government DC Rate, on evaluation by Sikandar Singh father of the complainant, the price of above land comes to Rs.35 lacs 85 thousands, due to which in the decision taken by the Court at America, Manjit Singh has been ordered to pay a huge amount to Harmandeep Kaur from his property in America. As per the report of Inquiry Officer, complainant Manjit Singh has suffered huge loss due to which the charges of playing fraud, cheating with complainant by the respondent party are proved. In my opinion, if the reports of AIG/NRI, Ludhiana are based on true facts, then as per the reports of Inquiry Officer, prima facie the offence under Section 406, 420, 120B IPC is made out against the respondent Baljit Singh and Harmandeep Kaur. During inquiry, if any other concrete evidence of document comes on record, or role of any other persons comes into light, then inquiry officer can take legal action after thorough investigation. If approved, then SHO of PS NRI be ordered to register the case, upon which Additional Director General of Police, NRI and Women Cell, Phase 7, SAS Nagar Mohali granting permission vide office order No.16079/NRI Nodal Officer (4) dated 10.06.2021, ‘SHO NRI Ludhiana City to register and investigate the case as per report of AIG/NRI/Ludhiana and legal opinion thereupon’ ordered to register the case and investigate. Today at Police Station: On receipt of above complaint in the police station, prima facie case under Section 406, 420, 120-B IPC PS NRI, Ludhiana City has been registered against respondents Baljit Singh son of Teja Singh resident of Village Nanakpur Jagera, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana and Harmandeep Kaur d/o Sohan Singh resident of Village Khasi Khurd presently resident of America. The case file along with copy of FIR has been kept by SHO PS as per orders and copies of the FIRS are being sent to the higher officers and Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana and control Room has been informed through telephone.” 3. The parties i.e. petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 got married on 8.12.2013. Owing to the tempramental differences, the marriage went into rough weather and there were cases/cross cases, claims/counter claims against each other preferred by both of them. It has been claimed that on 1.10.2019 the parties entered into a written settlement and as per the covenants contained therein the complainant agreed to pay a permanent alimony of Rs.4,70,000/- but subject to the condition that the parties shall withdraw the cases against each other. The complainant claims that the petitioner got property of the complainant evaluated wrongly and inflated evaluation was procured which was utilized before the Courts in America by petitioner no. 1 due to which the complainant was coerced to pay an amount of $2,49,866 to petitioner No. 1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the prosecution against the petitioner submits that even if the contents of the F.I.R are taken on the face value the same would not constitute offence punishable under Section 415 and 406 IPC and the complaint being totally bereft of even the basic ingredients to maintain the same and the constitute offence under Section 405 and 415 IPC. It will be a case which would fall within the parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported as 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 to quash the present F.I.R. 5. It will be a case which would fall within the parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported as 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 to quash the present F.I.R. 5. It has been further contended that the complainant has exercised his legal remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority in America wherein he produced evidence controverting the evidence produced by the petitioner and thus he cannot be allowed to square up his grievance qua proceedings in America by restricting the petitioner over here by launching criminal prosecution. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent, however, submits that from the conduct of the petitioner it is evident that the petitioner committed fraud upon the complainant. On one hand petitioner was coerced to pay her an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- as part of settlement dated 1.10.2019 in India and on the other hand the petitioner by getting inflated evaluation of the properties of the complainant got alimony before the Courts in America for which she was not entitled. 7. He relies upon illustration which as enumerated under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code to submit that the petitioner having intentfully deceived the complainant into a belief that she has performed her part wrongfully induced him to part away with the money. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments raised by counsel for the parties it will be apposite to peruse definition of criminal breach of trust and that of cheating as enumerated under Section 405, 415 IPC, which reads as under :- Section 405 of The Indian Penal Code “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. [Explanation 1]. [Explanation 1]. A person, being an employer 3 [of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not] who deducts the employees contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.] [Explanation 2.A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.] Illustrations (a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (b) A is a warehouse-keeper. Z going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (c) A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company’s paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company’s paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z’s advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z’s directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company’s paper, here, thought Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust. (e) A, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust. Section 415 of The Indian Penal Code 415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. Illustrations (a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats. b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. A cheats. b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and ay for the article. A cheats. d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats. e) A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats. f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats. g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract. h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats. i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.” 10. The reliance by the counsel for the complainant on illustration ‘h’ as enumerated under Section 415 IPC is misconceived and result of misreading. The reliance by the counsel for the complainant on illustration ‘h’ as enumerated under Section 415 IPC is misconceived and result of misreading. The said illustration does not deal with the breach of contract simplicitor as is the case here. Rather the same deals with intentionally misrepresentation to deceive that the deceptor has performed his part of his contract. Here there is no such allegation in whole of the F.I.R rather the allegation is with respect to creation of false evaluation of the property which has been used in the proceedings in America. 11. It is not disputed by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant had opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner in the proceedings in America and it is only after evaluating the evidence that the Courts have passed the orders. Resultantly this Court does not find that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R can make out an offence punishable under Section 406 or 420 IPC. 12. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 26 dated 12.6.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station NRI, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana and all proceedings arising therefrom, are, hereby quashed qua the petitioners.