Summary: The Bombay High Court canceled a police report and charge-sheet against Prajakta and Girdharilal Agrawal, who were accused of cheating and breaking trust in a real estate deal. The court decided the issue was a civil matter, not a criminal one.
In this case, Prajakta Mahendra Agrawal and Giridharilal Shivdas Agrawal were the applicants. They were up against the State of Maharashtra and Jawahar Dembda, the person who filed the complaint. The judges were Sandipkumar C. More and Mehroz K. Pathan.
Jawahar Dembda claimed that the Agrawals tricked him into investing in a real estate project. He said they promised big profits from a land deal in Jalna, but the sale never happened. At first, Dembda invested Rs. 25 lakhs, and later, another Rs. 25 lakhs after being pressured by the Agrawals. However, the land was never officially transferred.
"The person who complained suspected the actions of the accused... amounts to cheating... and breaking trust."
The Agrawals argued that the case was not criminal, but a civil disagreement. They pointed out that the deal was only between Dembda and Mahendra Agrawal, who had passed away. They claimed there was no proof of their involvement in any wrongdoing.
The court looked into whether the claims showed criminal intent or were just a civil disagreement. They found no proof that the Agrawals intended to deceive. The deal and transactions did not show any criminal actions by them.
"Continuing the criminal case would be a misuse of the court's process."
The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions highlighting the difference between civil disagreements and criminal offenses. They emphasized that not every broken trust is a criminal act unless there's intentional wrongdoing.
The court decided that the police report and charge-sheet were not justified since the case was civil in nature. They canceled the criminal proceedings, stating:
"The First Information Report and the resulting charge-sheet should be canceled and dismissed."
This judgment underscores the importance of telling apart civil and criminal matters, ensuring that criminal law isn't used incorrectly for civil disagreements.
