Criminal breach of trust and cheating allegations survived where money was collected for sale units and allegedly diverted

Multiple FIRs and complaint cases arising from alleged non-performance of sale agreements were examined against the ingredients of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery. The court accepted that a mere civil dispute would not justify criminal process, but held that the allegations of collecting substantial sums from intending purchasers, failing to deliver the promised units, and diverting or misappropriating the money prima facie showed dishonest intention and misappropriation. On that material, criminal liability was considered to be made out at the threshold, so the FIRs were not quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the multiple FIRs and complaint cases were liable to be quashed for want of a prima facie criminal offence, particularly under the provisions relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery.

Analysis: The petitioner's case was that the complaints disclosed only a civil dispute arising out of non-performance of agreements for sale and that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of cheating or forgery. The Court examined the statutory ingredients of criminal breach of trust and the factual allegations that the petitioner had collected substantial sums from intending purchasers, failed to deliver the promised units, and had allegedly diverted or misappropriated the amounts. On the material placed, the Court found that the collection of money without the requisite approvals and the alleged diversion of funds prima facie indicated dishonest intention and misappropriation, sufficient to attract criminal liability at the threshold.

Conclusion: The FIRs were not liable to be quashed and the writ petition failed.

---