JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.12.1995 arising out of case crime No. 474 of 1995, under Sections 419/420/467/468 IPC, police station Khuldabad, district Allahabad, in respect of which case No. 2782 of 2002 (State v. Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari) is pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
3. The allegations in the FIR dated 19.10.1995, lodged by the informant Arun Kumar were that in the year 1993 he had entered into an agreement with the applicant Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari for the sale of some property. The sale deed was to be executed in favour of the informant's son Sauhard Praveen. He thereafter paid Rs. 10,000/- and subsequently Rs. 40,000/- to the applicant for transfer of the land, but the applicant refused to transfer the land and in fact in the year 1994, he transferred the plot in a dishonest manner to some other person and refused to return Rs. 50,000/-, which was advanced to the applicant by the complainant. The applicant even began to quarrel with him when the complainant asked him either to execute the sale deed or to return the advanced sum.
4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the dispute between the parties is essentially of civil nature and the complainant had a remedy by way of filing of a civil suit for specific performance of the contract and that no offence of cheating was disclosed.
5. I note that the applicant had even moved an application before the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad for not framing a charge against him, which was rejected by the concerned Magistrate by his order dated 27.7.2000. Thereafter the charge was framed against the applicant on 23.3.2003. The applicant preferred a Criminal Revision, against the order framing charge, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Allahabad on 11.10.2004.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Narain 1998 UP Criminal Ruling 625 (SC). The facts of the said case were that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the accused, the owner of some land to sell a certain property situated in the town of Patna. He had however backed out of the agreement. Significantly in that case it had been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that " the most important terms in the deed was that possession of the plot would stand transferred to the complainant and the possession in fact was delivered to the complainant over which they have made certain construction," and in such a situation the Apex Court had observed that the only person, who would be interested in delaying and not completing his part of the bargain by not coming forward to pay the balance amount mentioned in the deed after paying some earnest money, would have been the complainant. In that situation, the Apex Court had observed that the breach thereof was civil in nature and not criminal and looking to the malicious nature of the prosecution, the Court had even directed that the complainant-respondent who was an Advocate to pay compensatory costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused for initiating the vexatious proceedings.
7. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the case before the Apex Court. In the present case, the applicant has not denied receiving the sums of money from the complainant. He has also not denied transferring the land to someone else. Unlike Nageshwar Prasad Singh's case (supra), the present is not a case where the land has been transferred to the complainant. Whether the applicant wanted to cheat the complainant from the beginning or whether such an intention arose subsequently, are all matters to be investigated by the trial court, and this Court cannot express any premature opinion on the point and it could not be said that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had refused to discharge the applicant and the Revisional court, which had dismissed the revision against the order framing the charge had acted in an illegal manner. There was also no significant delay in lodging of the FIR, which was lodged in 1995 after the applicant had transferred the land to another person even though he had received Rs. 50,000/ - from the complainant.
8. On the contrary, it is the filing of the application in 2005 when the FIR was lodged on 19,10.1995 and the order refusing to discharge the applicant was passed on 27.7.2000 and even when the charge was framed on 23.3.2003 and the Revision against the aforesaid order framing of the charge was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 11.10.2004, that the filing of the present application under 482 Cr.P.C appears to be a highly belated.
9. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. The observations hereinabove have only been made for the purpose of disposal of this application and the trial court shall decide the matter on merit, uninfluenced by the same.
10. The stay order granted earlier is vacated.
11. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
12. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court within a month.