IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-28675 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Amarjit Kaur & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing complaint No.73 dated 18.12.2003 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, titled ‘Balwant Singh vs. Amarjit Kaur & others’ (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, District Sangrur; and summoning order dated 7.7.2005 (Annexure P-2). Crl. Misc. No. M-28675 of 2009 [2] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners had agreed to sell their property to respondent No.2 vide agreement to sell dated 2.7.1988. Sale deed could not be registered because the property rights were given to the brother by the petitioners. In such circumstances, a civil suit was instituted by respondent No.2, for specific performance of the agreement. The suit has been decreed. 3. Judgment and decree were challenged by the respondent and the petitioners. Both the appeals have been dismissed by the District Judge, vide judgment dated 21.9.2002. Regular Second Appeals against the judgment and decree are pending adjudication before this Court. 4. Learned counsel has pointed out that after 15 years of the incident, the impugned complaint has been filed which is in abuse of process of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that the petitioners, fraudulently took money from the respondent and thereafter, gave the land to their brother in a collusive decree. Criminal conduct is clearly spelt out and therefore, the complaint and proceedings initiated thereon are not liable to be quashed. 6. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 7. The facts are not in dispute to the effect that Crl. Misc. No. M-28675 of 2009 [3] agreement to sell was executed on 2.7.1988. A civil suit for specific performance was instituted by respondent No.2 which has been decreed. The litigation on the civil side is pending adjudication before this Court at this point in time. Complaint has been filed after 15 years of the cause of action that might have arisen on the criminal side, in favour of respondent No.2. 8. The core of the issue is agreement to sell dated 2.7.1988. The silence of the complainant for 15 years is not explainable. It appears that because the civil litigation is still pending and the respondent is not happy with the decision rendered by the Court on the civil side, proceedings on criminal side have been initiated so as to harass the petitioners. In view of the considered opinion of the Court, it would cause abuse of process of Court and process of law if the proceedings are allowed to continue. 9. For the reason that issue is essentially of civil nature and on account of delay in initiating proceedings by respondent No.2, the petition is allowed. 10. Complaint No.73 dated 18.12.2003 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, titled ‘Balwant Singh vs. Amarjit Kaur & others’ (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, District Sangrur; and summoning order dated 7.7.2005 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 22, 2011 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No. M-28675 of 2009 [4] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?