ORDER
Narain Singh “Azad”, J.
1. The learned JMFC, Jabalpur refused to take cognizance of any offence
against non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7 by order dated 4-1-2001, on the complaint filed by these petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC. The petitioners challenge to aforesaid order in Cr.R. No. 53/2001 stood negatived by IInd ASJ, Jabalpur, on 31-12-2001, therefore, the petitioners seek exercise of inherent powers, for this direction to the learned JMFC, Jabalpur, that cognizance of offence may be taken against the non-applicants.
2. As per complaint on 13-3-2000, non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, agreed to sell in writing their property situated at block No. 16, plot No. 17/6, Civil Lines, Jabalpur, comprising an area of 600 sq. ft. alongwith 4 shops and 4 rooms, and received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each, with total of Rs. 50,000/-as advance in respect of aforesaid agreement. Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to get the sale-deed executed and registered within the period of three months from the date of agreement but just after a gap of 3 weeks only, they informed the complainant/petitioners, about their intention to sell the property to tenants of shops on higher price. On 7-4-2000, the petitioners laid a protest before Sub-Registrar on the basis of agreement dated 13-3-2000 entered into between the petitioners and non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. The complainant/petitioners further served a legal notice on non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Yet, non-applicant Nos. 3 to 7, executed registered sale-deed of the aforesaid property in favour of non-applicant Nos. 3 to 7 and returned the petitioner’s advance by a cheque. The petitioners lodged a report in this connection on 15-4-2001, at Police Station, Civil Lines, which did not take any action and hence the petitioners are constrained to file the complaint.
3. As per para No. 5, of the complaint and statements of both the complainants, recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.PC, after execution of agreement dated 13-3-2000, these petitioners’ complainants gave advertisement which was published in Dainik Bhaskar Daily Newspaper, Jabalpur, informing their willingness to sell the aforesaid property. It is stated by Barelal, the petitioner No. 2, in his statement, that the tenants who were occupying the shops situated on the aforesaid property, met the petitioners and were ready to purchase the shops from them, but the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the property to non-applicant Nos. 3 to 7, without keeping their promise given in sale agreement dated 13-3-2000.
4. As per photo-copy of agreement dated 13-3-2000, only non-applicant No. 1 entered into the agreement of sale and she alone executed the sale deed of the property in favour of the non-applicant Nos. 3 to 7 on 7-4-2000, as per photostat copy of the sale deeds. It is noteworthy that without getting the sale deed registered about the property, which is a subject matter of sale agreement dated 13-3-2000, the petitioners, complainants, gave advertisement for its sale on 4-4-2000, 5-4-2000 and 6-4-2000. Thereafter, as per the statement of these petitioners, the tenants who were occupying the shops undisputed property, contacted the petitioners/complainants expressing their desire to purchase the respective shops, themselves, thus, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances only it is apparent that non-applicant No. 1 thought it fit to sell the property herself to the tenants/occupants, rather then it may be sold by petitioner after registration of sale deed, and hence she returned the amount of advance.
5. Then it is found explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S.N. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in AIR 2001 SC 2960, and the same view is found to have been taken in State of Kerala v. A. Parsed Pillai and Anr., reported in 1972 Cr.LJ 1243, Kiran Desai v. Napolean Chemicals (I) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1999(1) Mh.LJ 575, and Bheru Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., also reported in (Crimes) 394, IX-1985 (2), that for offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was done and mere failure to keep up the promise subsequently, cannot be presumed as leading to cheating. Now on consideration of the facts stated in Para 3 above, in the light of this legal position, the order of learned JMFC dated 4-1-2001, wherein he refused to take cognizance of offence against the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7 on the complaint filed by petitioners, is not found to be illegal. Similarly, the Revisional Court is also not found to have committed any illegality in turning down the petitioner’s challenge of the aforesaid order dated 4-1-2001.
6. In result, in the absence of any patent illegality, the exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction is not found necessitated in this case, and hence, this petition is liable to be rejected at the stage of motion hearing, which is disallowed and rejected accordingly.
