ORDER : 1. The petitioners have filed present Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR No. 0129/2023 registered under Sections 420, 120B, 34 of the IPC at Police Station – Pulgaon, District – Durg on 27.03.2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Firoz Khan filed complaint alleging that the plot situated at Gram Panchayat Jewra bearing Khasra No. 496/1, 156, 151/1, Patwari Halka No. 9 and 13 have been sold to Dalbir Singh, Mansingh, Shamsher Khan, Rahim Khan by the accused Mahavir Developers. Director Yogesh Pandey and his associates and employees Vinay Launay, Karthik and Patwari Halka No. 9 and 13 by conspiring, deceiving and committing fraud as they have not taken approval from Town and Country Planning Authorities. It has been futher contended that Khasra No. 496/1 belongs to Ramavatar S/o Jagannath and 05 others. Said land has been divided into 39 plots and sold by the accused without proper approval and paying tax. Similarly, the land bearing Khasra No. 156 is registered in the name of Swami Mohan S/o Chandrika and two others, Khasra No. 151/1 is registered in the name of Shriram S/o Govardhan and two others, in which plotings have been done. According to the complainant from 10.01.2021 till 27.03.2023 at 19:00 hrs, the directors of Mahavir Developers and his associates Vinay Launay and Karthik without getting the map approved and taking T.N.C. approval have sold land by paying less consideration to the actual land owners. Since the accused have sold the lands without TNC approval the selling of land is illegal. As such, Yogesh Pandey, the director of Mahavir Developers and his associates have been defrauding the government and misleading the general public by buying and selling land fraudulently and through conspiracy for a long time, therefore, strictest action be taken against them. On the basis of the applicant's application, prima facie a crime under Section 420, 120B, 34 IPC has been found, accordingly offence has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the face of FIR, no offence much less offence under Sections 420, 120B & 34 of IPC is made out. On the basis of the applicant's application, prima facie a crime under Section 420, 120B, 34 IPC has been found, accordingly offence has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the face of FIR, no offence much less offence under Sections 420, 120B & 34 of IPC is made out. In the present case if definition of cheating is kept in juxtapose with the contents of FIR, it will be clear that nowhere it has been stated that the complainant has been deceived or induced to enter into any transaction with any persons. He would further submit that as per contents of FIR, the plots have been sold to various persons by present petitioners belonging to other persons, as stated above therefore, it is unimaginable that any person will enter into any sale or purchase of any immovable property when the said property does not belong to the person with whom transaction is being entered into. Thus there is no privity of contract by and between present petitioners and the persons to whom allegedly plots have been sold. Unless and until the complainant/respondent No.2 encloses documents to the effect that petitioners have sold the property of other persons by impersonating or otherwise, then only any offence of impersonation and cheating may be registered by police. In case at hand, admittedly in the FIR itself it has been mentioned that the lands belong to some other persons and the same have been sold to other persons after plotting and in this background, when on the face of it there is no inducement at least by present petitioners, the police authorities have abused their powers by affecting personal liberty of present petitioners. 4. It has been further contended that it is well established law that registration of criminal case necessarily affect fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 & 21 of Constitution of India apart from being arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that before registering offence of cheating punishable under Section 415 of IPC, the first requirement of law is to follow the law laid down in the matter of Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. Of UP & ors, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 . At this stage the petitioners had drawn attention of this Court towards Para 120 of Lalita Kumari's (case). Of UP & ors, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 . At this stage the petitioners had drawn attention of this Court towards Para 120 of Lalita Kumari's (case). He would further submit that at the point of registration of offence, nothing material has been produced before the police by which police authorities get any jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter under Section 154 CrPC. For the registration of offence, ingredients of Section 154 CrPC are taken into consideration. He would further submit that acts of omission and commission attributable towards the petitioners is no offence in the eyes of law. However, it is submitted that if any person enters into transaction, as stated above, then in respect of such act provision has been incorporated under the Act of 1956 by way of CG Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act 2011 and by Section 13 of the Amendment Act, Sections 292-A to 292-F have been inserted. A glance of the provisions will make it clear that Section 292A deals with registration of colonizer or builder. Section 292B deals with development of colonies. Section 292C & 292D deal with punishment for illegal colonization and punishment for abetment of offence of illegal diversion of land or illegal colonization. He would further submit that although by way of Amendment Act, 2011 certain acts of omission and commission of illegal colonization have been made punishable but its cognizance can only be taken in a particular manner prescribed under the law and in the present case the same has not been followed, naturally no offence under the Amendment Act, 2011 has been registered. In substance, contention of petitioners is that in respect of cognizance or procedure for prosecution a specific procedure is prescribed under Section 396 of the Act of 1956. Only Magistrate can take cognizance of offence under the Act of 1956 and that too, except on a compliant made by the Commissioner or by any Municipal Officer or officer in-charge of a police station authorized by the Commissioner in this behalf, either generally or in regard to all such offences or particularly in regard to specific offence or offences of a special class. Thus it is clear that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted by respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.2. Thus it is clear that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted by respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.2. He would further submit that law in this regard is well settled that when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner only. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that during the pendency of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition the Patwari report which was relied for implicating the petitioners in the present case has been examined by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durg in Revenue Case No. 202304100284/a-89 (Firoz Khan and Others vs. Yogesh Pandey) and vide order dated 15.12.2023 held that the petitioners are absolved of the alleged charges of illegal plotting. During this proceeding Patwari has submitted report dated 30.06.2023 before the Sub-Divisional Officer wherein he had denied that the petitioners are doing illegal plotting by deceiving the actual land owners and submitted that none of the land has been recorded in the name of the petitioners. 6. On the above factual matrix learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that registration of offence against present petitioners show highhanded action on the part of the police, matter predominantly is civil in nature and reason behind on the face of it appears to be that respondent No.2 belongs to ruling party in the State and is-recently elected as General Secretary of Indian National Congress Party, Durg (Rural). In other words, on the face it appears that respondent authorities have acted for extraneous consideration and surrendered their discretion to some other authority or at the behest of certain other persons, liberty of present petitioners has been put on stake by the protector of liberty or protector has become predator in present case and would pray for quahsment of the FIR. To substantiate his submission he would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of UP and Others{ (2014) 2 SCC 1 }, State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 395, Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal { (2022) 7 SCC 124 }, Vinod Nastesan vs. State of Kerala { (2019) 2 SCC 401 }, 7. of UP and Others{ (2014) 2 SCC 1 }, State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 395, Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal { (2022) 7 SCC 124 }, Vinod Nastesan vs. State of Kerala { (2019) 2 SCC 401 }, 7. Per contra, learned counsel for State would submit that the from bare perusal of the diary it is quite vivid that congnizable offence has been committed by the petitioners, thereafter, on a fair and transparent investigation, the Police has registered the FIR. Further, submission made by the petitioners are their defence which can very well be taken before the learned trial Court for proving their innocence, therefore, would pray for dismissal of this petition. 8. The respondent No. 2 has filed return wherein he has contended that the concerned police station has registered the offence under Section 120-B, 420 and 34 of IPC after due verification and correspondence made by the Revenue Officer. The petitioners have challenged the registration of above FIR on the ground that Prima Facie registration of FIR is violation of Section 396 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 whereas the concerned land is situated in Village: Jevra, Tahsil and District: Durg which is not the territorial jurisdiction of Durg Municipal Corporation, therefore, Municipal Corporation Act is not applicable in above Gram Panchayat, therefore, the grounds taken by the petitioners are not sustainable. It has also been contended that the contentions made by the the petitioners that they are not involved in any transaction with regard to the property in question is wrong submission of facts as the petitioner No. 1 has issued Cheque No. 787700 and 787649 of Indian Oversees Bank in favour of persons who are the land onwer of Survey No. 496. Similarly, with other land owners of the land bearing Survey No. 496 i.e. Poona Chand S/o Late Jayant, Uttara Devi D/o Late Jayant, Keshi Bai @ Keshal Bai D/o Uttara, Ambala D/o Late Uttara, and Parega Bai W/o Late Jayant, they executed agreement for sale and purchase of the above land and when the petitioner No. 1 tried to make plotting of said land, they objected the same and made some complaint before the concerned Police Outpost- Jeora, Sirsa. They lodged various complaint on 30.11.2021, 11.12.2021 and 22.01.2022 and submitted that the concerned petitioner No. 1 is doing illegal fraud and cheque given by him was dishonoured and also he was threatening the villagers for executing the sale deed in small pieces of land. Similarly with other land owners namely Ramadhar Sahu and Kamlesh and Smt. Devarin Bai bearing Survey No. 151/1 same modus operandi was adopted by executing agreement vide agreement dated 16.02.2022 for sale value of above land was @ 85 Lakhs per acre and sold the land after plotting. Same was objected by the present farmers, but the petitioner No. 1 threatened them if they do not sell their plots or entire land, they will be punished therefore, they contacted the present respondent No. 2 who lodged a complaint on 06.02.2023 before the Collector, Durg in Jan Darshan Karyakaram. Thereafter, the Collector directed the Revenue Officer to look after the matter and the concerned Patwari of Gram Panchayat Jeora who filed his memo to the Sub Divisional Officer, Durg and he stated that Yogesh Pandey who is the present petitioner is doing illegal fraud in the Land Survey No. 151/1 admeasuring area 0.410 hectare, in land survey No. 496/1 admeasuring area 0.726 hectare which belongs to the complaints and on the basis of above memo and inquiry report, the sub Divisional officer started proceeding under Section 40 against the concerned Gram Panchayat Jewra as it was also involved in the illegal ploting as well as on same complaint the authority got registered FIR against the present petitioner in which it is clearly mentioned that on the basis of complaint given before the collector, the inquiry was made and it is found that the present petitioner is involved in illegal fraud. The Revenue Officers have taken ample time to inquire the matter and thereafter, they registered the FIR, therefore the registration of FIR is not illegal and would pray for dismissal of the present Cr.M.P. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that from the statement of farmers Prima Facie the case is made out against the present petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that from the statement of farmers Prima Facie the case is made out against the present petitioners. The petitioners are taking shelter of section 396 of Municipal Corporation Act which is not available to them as this Section deals with the violation under Municipal Corporation Act and does not deal with the offence of cheating therefore, remedy of registration of FIR under Section 420 of the IPC is available to State, as such, registration of FIR is legal, justified and not liable to be quashed by this Court. She would further submit that respondent No. 2 being an Indian Citizen has locus standi to bring the truth before competent authority and the complainants have also executed affidavit before this Court on 18.02.2024 wherein they have categorically stated that since the Police have not taken any cognizance of the complaint, therefore, they have moved an application through respondent No. 2 before Collector and after long persuasion by respondent No. 2 only FIR has been registered. She would further submit that the petitioners are taking a ground that in a case pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer they have been acquitted which is completely misleading fact as in that proceeding the concerned SDO has come into conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for taking action against Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat for proceeding under Section 40 and in which the petitioners have not been acquitted, therefore, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 07.12.2023. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and also the photocopy of the diary produced by the State. 11.From the above submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the point to be determined by this Court is whether prima face offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners or not ? 11.From the above submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the point to be determined by this Court is whether prima face offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners or not ? 12.To appreciate the point cropped up in the matter it is expedient for this Court to examine the relevant provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC, which read as under:- 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”. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property —Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 13. From bare perusal of the Section 415 of the IPC it is quite vivid that if a person by deceiving any person, fraduently or dishonestly induce the person to deliver any property to any person, or obtain consent which he would not have do if he were not so deceived, then only the act will fall within the ambit of cheating. In light of the provisions contained in Section 415 of the IPC, this Court has to examine the ingredients of the FIR, the case diary, statement of the witnesses recorded by the police, statement of the farmers whose lands have been sold by the petitioners by plotting and also the affidavit filed before this Court by the land owners before this Court on 18.02.2024. 14.From materials available in the diary it is quite vivid that an agreement was executed between petitioner No. 1 and Ram Sahu, Kamlesh Sahu and Devarin Bai on 16.02.2022 wherein it has been agreed between the parties that at the time of execution of agreement 20 Lakhs were paid to the sellers i.e. land owners and rest of the amount was payable in 11 installments of Rs. 6,00,000/- per months. The agreement further provides that the land will be either registered in the name of petitioner No. 1 or any other person in consolidate manner or in pieces. The land owners have nowhere stated that the petitioners have not fulfilled their contractual obligation by not paying the agreed amount despite that he has sold the property. Even respondent No. 2 has nowhere stated that the farmers /landowners have told him that the petitioners have not paid the agreed amount and despite this they have sold the property, as such, it amounts to cheating. This vital ingredient is neither available in the diary nor in the submissions made before this Court or affidavits filed by the landowners or respondent No. 2, thus, prima face no offence of cheating is made out. 15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalit Chaturvedi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh {SLP (Crl.) No. 13485 of 2023 dated 06.02.2024} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “This Court, in a number of judgments, has pointed out the clear distinction between a civil wrong in the form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of the contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. Repeated judgments of this Court, however, are somehow overlooked, and are not being applied and enforced. We will be referring to these judgments. The impugned judgment dismisses the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of delay/laches and also the factum that the chargesheet had been filed on 12.12.2019. This ground and reason is also not valid. In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another”, this Court had referred to Section 420 of the IPC, to observe that in order to constitute an offence under the said section, the following ingredients are to be satisfied : - “18. This ground and reason is also not valid. In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another”, this Court had referred to Section 420 of the IPC, to observe that in order to constitute an offence under the said section, the following ingredients are to be satisfied : - “18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 19. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).” Similar elucidation by this Court in “V.Y. Jose and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another”, explicitly states that a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding. The ingredient of ‘cheating’, as defined under Section 415 of the IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning of the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the offence can be found out, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y.Jose (supra) placed reliance on several earlier decisions in “Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI”, “Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.”, “Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal” and “All Cargo Movers (I) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain”. 16. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A.M. Mohan vs The State Represented By SHO and Another {SLP (Cr.) No. 9598 of 2022 dated 20.03.2024} has culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC and has held that to attract the provisions of Section 420 of the IPC the FIR / complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC are made out and the petitioners cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 11 to 13 and 19 has held as under:- 11. This Court, in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another v. Sudha Seetharam and Another has culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC, as under: “15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: “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”. 16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: 16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: 16.1.1. 16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: 16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: 16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: 19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. 20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420.” 12. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another and Mariam Fasihuddin and Another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and Another. 13. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another and Mariam Fasihuddin and Another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and Another. 13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. 19. At the cost of repetition, it has to be noted that no role of inducement at all has been attributed to the present appellant. Rather, from the perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet, it would reveal that there was no transaction of any nature directly between the appellant and the complainant. The version, if accepted at its face value, would reveal that, at the instance of accused No. 1, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in the account of the appellant. On receipt of the said amount, the appellant immediately executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.1, who thereafter executed the GPA in favour of the complainant. After that, no role is attributed to the present appellant and whatever happened thereafter, has happened between accused No. 1, the complainant and the other accused persons. In that view of the matter, we find that the FIR or the charge-sheet, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC qua the appellant. 17. From the above legal position it is quite vivid that the dishonest intention is the sine qua non to attract the provisions of 415 and 420 of the IPC. 17. From the above legal position it is quite vivid that the dishonest intention is the sine qua non to attract the provisions of 415 and 420 of the IPC. This Court is of the considered view that the same is totally lacking qua the respondent No. 2 even otherwise he is not directly deceived person as no transaction has been taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that continuation of criminal proceeding against the present petitioners would be nothing but amount to abuse of process of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. deserves to be allowed and is allowed and the FIR bearing Crime No. 0129/2023 registered before the Police Station – Pulgaon, District Durg under Sections 420, 120B, 34 of the IPC and subsequent criminal proceedings, if any initiated on the strength of present Crime Number, are quashed. 18. However, quashing of the present FIR by this Court does not preclude the Government or the any other persons who are directly affected by the said transaction or non compliance of any provisions of law to take recourse available to them under the law. 19. With the aforesaid observation and direction the Cr.M.P. stands allowed.