ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 144 of 2014 registered with Anjar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 That criminal complaint being I-Cr. No. 144/14 (originally stated in the complaint as 144/13) had been filed with the Anjar Police Station for offences punishable under Section 406 , 420 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE dated 05.05.2014. The period when the offence had been committed is shown as from 19.08.2013 till date. The petitioners state that complainant respondent No. 2 alleges in the complaint that he is residing at the address given in the cause title and he was interested in purchasing land bearing survey No. 86/1/paiki 2 admeasuring 810 sq. mtrs located at Anjar (in short “land in dispute”) which was of the ownership of the present petitioners and he had entered into an agreement to sale in that regard on 19.08.2013 and the petitioners had voluntarily accepted the token amount for signing the said agreement to sale (Sata Karar). It is further stated in the complaint that thereafter applicant No.6 had ensured sale of Plot Nos. 680 and 681 as per the terms of agreement to sale located at Ramkrishna Mahavirnagar and having accepted the consideration for the same and he had signed as wherein in the sale deed with regard to the said land and complainant Nos. It is further stated in the complaint that thereafter applicant No.6 had ensured sale of Plot Nos. 680 and 681 as per the terms of agreement to sale located at Ramkrishna Mahavirnagar and having accepted the consideration for the same and he had signed as wherein in the sale deed with regard to the said land and complainant Nos. 1 and 6 had taken amount of Rs.31,56,200/- various dates and the complainant was regularly requesting the said petitioners to fulfil the applicant's obligation of completing the sale deed in favour of the complainant and the complainant since he belong to the same community since the petitioners had allegedly asked friends and relatives of the community to intervene but since it appears that the petitioners were passing time, the complainant had got a legal notice issued through his Advocate on 25.02.2014 in response to which the petitioners had replied through legal notice confirming the complainant that since the time period as stated in the agreement to sale, all 6 months had expired, therefore agreement had got cancelled on its own. Thus it was alleged that the petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust and cheating alleging the impugned complaints been filed against the present petitioners. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that issue of civil nature has been given colour of criminality to pressurize the petitioners. He would further submit that as per the FIR, agreement to sell qua land in dispute was executed on 19.8.2013 at a sale consideration of Rs.60 lakh, out of which, according to the FIR, Rs.31,56,200/- has been paid by the complainant to the petitioner, but later on, since the petitioners have not executed the sale deed pursuant to the specific performance of the agreement to sell, the impugned FIR is filed, which is completely misuse of process. He would further submit that in order to attract the present offence, initiation of the accused to commit criminal breach of trust must be from the inception and in the present case, there is no criminal breach of trust, as the petitioners have not entrusted any property to any person. He would further submit that the complainant has also filed Special Civil Suit No.17 of 2015 before the competent civil Court for relief of specific performance, which is subject matter of the FIR and therefore, essential ingredients of the offence u/s 406 and 420 are missing. He would further submit that the complainant has also filed Special Civil Suit No.17 of 2015 before the competent civil Court for relief of specific performance, which is subject matter of the FIR and therefore, essential ingredients of the offence u/s 406 and 420 are missing. Upon such submission, he prays to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent original complainant after arguing to some extent, failed to point out that how the offences u/s 406, 420, 114 of the IPC is made out, as commercial transaction between the parties have been given colour of criminality. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. , 2021 (9) SCC 35 to submit that the Court should not held mini trial at the stage where the FIR is sought to be quashed. Upon such submission, he prays to pass necessary orders. 6. Learned APP after adopting argument of learned advocate for the complainant prays to pass necessary orders. 7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the records. 8. At the outset, let reproduce translation of the FIR so as to understand the dispute between the parties:- “(1) Shantiben w/o Babulal Vira Chotara, (2) Jayshreeben Babulal Chotara, currently residing in Vidi, (3) Pallaviben Babulal Chotara, residing in Madhapar, (4) Sitaben Babulal Chotara (residing in Sukhpar, Bhuj), (5) Ashvis Babulal Chotara, (6) Vimal Babulal Chotara, residing in Anjar (illegible) accepted the amount of the deed on 19/08/2013. They executed an Exchange Deed and provided me with a receipt, presenting the original case papers pertaining to the land under Khata No. 63 of outskirts of moje Anjar, bearing Revenue Survey No. 6/1 paiki 2 land hectares 0-08-10 per Are. This land is registered in the name of Bhagatvadi. They delivered the original file and construction permit etc. to me after establishing residential houses on the said land. Thereafter, Vimal Babulal Chotara accepted the amount of sale of the plot Nos. 680 and 681 of Ramkrushna Mahavir Nagar according to the Exchange Deed and he produced witnesses in the sale deed of that property. Shantiben Babulal Chotara and Vimal Babulal Chotara accepted total amount of ?? 31,56,200/- from me on different dates as per the form Nos. 7 and 12. 680 and 681 of Ramkrushna Mahavir Nagar according to the Exchange Deed and he produced witnesses in the sale deed of that property. Shantiben Babulal Chotara and Vimal Babulal Chotara accepted total amount of ?? 31,56,200/- from me on different dates as per the form Nos. 7 and 12. I persuaded them so many time via phone call to make the deed and as we belong to same caste, I also persuaded them through our relatives. But I got to know that they had malafide intention and they were passing time. At last, I sent them a notice through my advocate on 25/02/2014,. In response, they replied that the Exchange Deed had automatically been null and void as six months had elapsed for the Exchange Deed, therefore. By asserting this, they have perpetrated an act of criminal deception against me. I am herewith producing the necessary documents in this regard. Therefore, these accused persons executed the Exchange Deed of the land under Khata No. 63 of outskirts of moje Anjar, bearing Revenue Survey No. 6/1 paiki 2 land hectares 0-08-10 per Are and registered in the name of Bhagatvadi. They accepted the intermediate amount of Rs. 31,56,200/- and though being told so many times to make the documents, they did not make the documents. Furthermore, they committed an act of deception by falsely asserting that the Exchange Deed had automatically become null and void due to the lapse of six months. Accordingly, this is my formal complaint, seeking the initiation of appropriate legal action against them.” 9. On perusal of the FIR, it indicates that it is a notice for specific performance for agreement to sell. The averments made therein are even if taken as true on its face does not constitute any of the necessary ingredients of the offence. 10. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust can be stated as are: "(1) The accused must be entrusted with the property or with dominion over it, (2) The person so entrusted must use that property, or; (3) The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation, (a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or; (b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust." 11. The essential ingredients of section 405 of IPC are as under :- "Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, ‘in any manner entrusted with property’. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of ‘trust’. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code." 12. The essential ingredients of offence of cheating are as under :- "1. Deception of any person 2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person- (i) to deliver any property to any person: or(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no 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." 13. In view of above, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. Section 420 of IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement in terms of delivery of property as well as valuable securities. This section is also applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is caused by way of cheating or inducement. Punishment for cheating provided under this section is up to 7 years and also makes the person liable to fine. To establish offence of cheating and inducement of deliver of property, following ingredient need to be proved :- "1. The representation made by the person was false. 2. The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false. 3. The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. 4. The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed." 14. 3. The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. 4. The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed." 14. Having gone through FIR on record, it appears that there is commercial transaction between first informant and the petitioners. 15. At this stage, I may refer to para 36 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai (supra). Para 36 reads as under :- "36. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the chargesheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC, 1860. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. In the instant case, there is no material to indicate that Appellants had any malafide intention against the Respondent which is clearly deductible from the MOU dated 20.08.2009 arrived between the parties." 16. In the case of Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 293 , Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observation:- “13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case, there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any inception on behalf of an accused person to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence u/s 420 IPC. In our view, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the courts. In our view, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the courts. Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.” 17. In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736 a two-judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms: “12. … (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/ malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) ..” 18. In the case of in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 691 , the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observation :- “11. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 19. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 19. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B. Bhajanlal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon’ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code. (3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are sO absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 19.1 The findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 19.1 The findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration. 20. In view of above discussion, the judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the original complainant rendered no assistance to the case of the complainant. 21. In view of above, allowing FIR further into trial would be abuse of process of law. Criminal proceedings started is found to be initiated with intention of taking vengeance by giving civil litigation colour of criminality. The petition deserves consideration. 22. In the result, present petition is allowed. Impugned FIR being C.R.No.I – 144 of 2014 registered with Anjar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.