Fraudulent Intention in Property Transactions: FIR survives where false title claims and inducement to pay money are alleged

False representation of property title, inducement to pay money, and failure to convey title or refund the amount were treated as sufficient to indicate fraudulent intention from the inception, so the dispute was not confined to a civil or contractual breach and the FIR could not be quashed at the threshold under inherent jurisdiction. The jurisdictional objection also failed because the real estate fraud inquiry fell within the Economic Offences Wing framework applicable to the 2023 registration, making the FIR and investigation legally permissible. Allegations of cheating and allied offences were held to disclose a cognizable criminal case, while the parallel complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act did not negate those ingredients.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the FIR and its investigation could be quashed on the ground that the Crime Branch lacked jurisdiction; and (ii) whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable criminal offence despite the transaction having civil as well as contractual features.

Issue (i): Whether the FIR and its investigation could be quashed on the ground that the Crime Branch lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: The objection to jurisdiction was examined in the light of the earlier position that the Crime Branch could investigate only matters covered by SRO 202 dated 03.06.1999. The FIR, however, was registered in 2023 and the dispute related to real estate fraud, which fell within the jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Wing under SO 232 dated 09.05.2022. On that basis, the registration and investigation of the FIR were found to be legally permissible.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed and was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable criminal offence despite the transaction having civil as well as contractual features.

Analysis: The dispute was not treated as a mere breach of contract. The agreement to sell and surrounding material showed an alleged false representation that the seller was the owner of the property, followed by receipt of substantial money and failure to convey title or refund the amount. The governing principles on quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were applied to hold that a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution where fraudulent or dishonest intention exists from the inception. The allegations were found sufficient to make out offences of cheating and allied offences, and the pending complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not negate the distinct ingredients of cheating. The roles attributed to the other petitioners were treated as matters for investigation.

Conclusion: The FIR disclosed cognizable offences and quashing was refused.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were not fit for interference under the inherent jurisdiction, as the investigation was allowed to continue on the basis that the allegations disclosed a prima facie criminal case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where allegations show false representation of title, inducement to part with money, and fraudulent intention from the inception, the dispute is not reduced to a mere civil controversy and the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---