CRM No. M-7156 of 2008 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-7156 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.02.2011 Baljit Singh & others .......... petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of complaint dated 17.12.2002 registered under Sections 420 IPC as well as order dated 13.7.2006, vide which the petitioners have been summoned by the learned revisional Court. Brief facts of the case are as under :- The petitioners executed an agreement to sell their land measuring 8 Kanals in favour of respondent No.2. However, they failed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. In spite of execution of agreement in favour of respondent No.2, the CRM No. M-7156 of 2008 -2- petitioners got executed the sale deed in favour of one Joginderpal Singh. A criminal complaint was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad vide order dated 11.10.2005, dismissed the complaint, on the ground that it was a case of breach of contract. The dispute is of civil nature. The Revisional Authority set aside the order of the learned trial Court and petitioners were directed to appear before the learned trial Court to face trial under Section 420 IPC. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order of the Revisional Authority is liable to be set aside, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and another 2006(3)RCR (Criminal) 793. In this case the accused had entered into an agreement to sell his land to complainant and had accepted earned money of Rs. 6 Lakhs. Sale was made to some other person. No offence of cheating was made out, as there was no allegation that the accused had dishonest intention right from the beginning. Relies on Rajesh Rawat vs. Karan Singh Dagar 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 710, wherein reference has been made to Section 398 Cr.P.C., which reads as under :- “Power to order inquiry – On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any CRM No. M-7156 of 2008 -3- complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged : Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.” As per Section 398 Cr.P.C. proper course for the Sessions Judge was to remand the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and pass appropriate orders after re-examining the evidence. Mr. R.K. Girdhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has taken a preliminary objection that the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 is a revisable and a revision is maintainable within a period of 90 days. In the present case revision has been filed in the month of March, 2008 i.e. after more than 1 ½ year. On one hand, the accused persons entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No.2 and, on the other hand, executed the sale deed through the general power of attorney in favour of Joginder Pal Singh. They received an amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- as earnest money. In this manner they had committed a fraud. In para 3 of the complaint, it has been specifically mentioned that the accused were having intention to commit fraud with him right from the beginning. Cites Mahesh Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 717 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of similar CRM No. M-7156 of 2008 -4- nature has observed that the High Court should be slow in interfering with the proceedings at the initial stage and that merely because the nature of the dispute is primarily of a civil nature, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed because in cases of forgery and fraud there would always be some element of civil nature. Once after the police investigation, if a charge-sheet had been submitted disclosing commission of offence, there is no ground to quash criminal proceedings. During the pendency of this criminal miscellaneous the proceedings in the learned trial Court were in progress and at this stage it could not be appropriate to quash the complaint and the summoning order. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this criminal miscellaneous is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to take all the pleas in the criminal miscellaneous before the learned trial Court. 07.02.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE