ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has sought quashment of F.I.R. No. 666 of 2012, dated 25-10-2012 Police Station Ferozabad, District East for offence under sections 420/506-B P.P.C. Wherein it is stated by the respondent No.4 Mst. Zaiba Kably that they have family terms with petitioner Tariq Nazir Bukhari since about 30 years. On 3-11-2007 he received an amount of Rs.37,98,280 from her on account of expenses regarding plot and its transfer process for consideration of his Plot No.805, measuring 2 Kanals and 10 marlas, Mauza Sambli, Behra Mall, Daak Khana, Angoori, Tehsil Muree, Zila Rawalpindi through an agreement by declaring himself as owner.
Further stated that on 24-9-2012 the respondent No.4 went to Rawalpindi in order to construct the house where she came to know that no such plots exists and the petitioner was not owner of the said plot; that she went to petitioner in order to get back her money on which he taking out the pistol threatened her, if she came again for claiming the amount, then he (petitioner) would kill her.
It is alleged that the complainant has cheated her by selling the plot and issued murderous threats to her.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is doctor by profession and suffering from slip disc injury, knee, ankle and other joint problems; that per sale agreement dated 3-6-2008 there was only transaction between the petitioner and respondent for sale and purchase of the subject property and there was no obligation whatsoever on the petitioner to develop the subject property for the purpose of construction by the respondent No.4; that the respondent No.4 has filed Suit No.1417 of 2012 in relation to subject property for recovery of Rs.37,98,280 and damages in the sum of Rs.1,80,00,000 in this court.
3. After registration of the case the police put up the summary of 'A' Class before the Magistrate on the plea that the respondent No.4 did not appear before investigation officer for recording her statement.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are not constituted against the petitioner; further contends property in question had been sold by the petitioner through Agreement of Sale dated 3-6-2008 was mutated in the name of the respondent No.4; that the facts alleged in the civil suit have been mentioned in the F.I.R. In addition to allegation of threats of murder for constituting an offence under section 506 P.P.C. To convert the civil dispute into criminal liability, therefore, he prays for quashment of F.I.R. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the cases MIRAJ KHAN v. GUL AHMED and 3 others (2000 SCM R 122), MUHAMMAD NASIM KHAN and another v. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN and another (1993 PCr.LJ 1795), BASHIR DAWOOD and 2 others v. TANVEER AHMED and another (2000 PCr.LJ 1230); ABDUL RASHID and 2 others v. THE STATE and another (1987 PCr.LJ 1380).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has contended that the petitioner malafidely by deceiving the respondent No.4 has played fraud with her and deprived her from an amount of Rs.37,98,280; that the petitioner not only cheated her but also extended threats of murder on demanding of the alleged amount by the petitioner. He further contends that the factual controversy could not be filtered by exercising constitutional jurisdiction by this court therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
6. We have given careful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Perusal of contents of F.I.R. Reveals that it relates to sale of plot No.805, measuring 2 Kanals and 10 marlas, Mauza Sambli, Behra Mall, Daak Khana, Angoori, Tehsil Muree, Zila Rawalpindi. The allegation is that the complainant/respondent No.4 entered into the agreement of sale on 3-6-2008 in consideration of Rs.36,00,000. It is also the matter of record that respondent No.4 has filed a Suit for declaration and recovery of Rs.37,98,280 and also damages of Rs.1,80,00,000. The respondent No.4 (complainant) has alleged that on her visit of disputed plot on 24-9-2012 she came to know that no plot exist there. In her plaint of Suit No.1417 of 2012 the respondent No.4 in para-5 has stated that at the time of selling of the plot it was told to her by the defendant/petitioner that approximate period of 3/4 years will be consumed in completion of the development work of water and sewerage line, demarcation, electricity and gas supply etc. Thereafter she will be able to construct the house. The petitioner in his petition so also in the written statement has admitted the execution of agreement and receipt of an amount of Rs.36,00,000 and it is also the case of petitioner that after being satisfied with the location of suit property and title of the petitioner, the sale agreement was executed. The payment is also admitted. It is also stated that title and possession of the property is in the name and control of the petitioner/respondent No.4 and this fact is verifiable from the record of concerned authority.
7. From perusal of plaint and contents of F.I.R. It appears that the respondent No.4 has alleged cheating against the petitioner, therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision of section 420 P.P.C. For ready reference:-- "S. 420: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the persons 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."
8. For the purpose of cheating, dishonest intention at the time of performing an act or promise is to be inferred and not from subsequent non-fulfillment of the promise. In other words, fraudulent and dishonest intention and inducement at the time of performing act are essential ingredients for offence of cheating and criminal breach. It is an admitted fact on record that there was a contract/agreement between the parties. Receipt of amount is admitted, signatures on the agreement are also admitted by the parties. It is also admitted fact on record that there was no demarcation and construction work of the suit plot at the time of agreement in question. The whole controversy is with regard to nonfulfillment of the terms of agreement in question thus was not covered within the definition of a false document. Moreover, breach of contract, if any, in absence of dishonest intention does not constitute criminal offence under section 420, P.P.C.
9. It is admitted fact on record that the respondent No.4 prior to registration of F.I.R. Filed a suit and copy of letter to S.H.O. Ferozabad was also annexed thereto wherein only allegation of the alleged cheating has been levelled against the present petitioner and there is no mention of criminal intimidation or any threat in the said letter. Moreover, F.I.R. Also does not indicate date and time and in whose presence threats were extended by the petitioner to the respondent No.4. Thus, the said allegations appear general in nature and are afterthought to bring the case within the meaning of section 506(2) P.P.C.
10. The upshot of our discussion is that the whole controversy in the case is with regard to not fulfilling the terms of agreement executed between the parties. We are of the view that even on admitted facts no offence can be made out against the respondent as the dispute is entirely of civil nature which has been converted into criminal proceedings. The proceedings before any court on the basis of the said F.I.R. Would be nothing but an abuse of process of law and the case will not end in conviction, therefore, in the above circumstances this constitution petition is converted into application under section 561-A Cr.P.C. And thereby by exercising inherent powers the F.I.R.
No.666/2012 registered at Police Station Ferozabad and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.