Crl. Misc. No.M-29225 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-29225 of 2009 Date of Decision : 26.10.2010 Gurbax Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of an FIR No.42 dated 03.05.2007 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar on the basis of compromise Annexure P-4. Brief facts of the case are that the above said FIR was lodged by respondent No.2-Bhupinder Singh against the present petitioners. As per the FIR, the complainant entered into an agreement regarding purchasing of land measuring 4 K 13 M with Tej Kaur widow of Santokh Singh r/o Village Raipur @ ` 1,55,000/- per acre. The land was situated at Village Raipur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. An amount of Crl. Misc. No.M-29225 of 2009 2 ` 55,000/- was given cash to Tej Kaur by way of earnest money at the time of Agreement and the date for the said registry was fixed as 11.10.2006 and the remaining balance amount was to be paid at the time of Registry. Gurbax Singh s/o Mohinder Singh R/o Village Khant, is also grand son of Tej Kaur. The said Gurbax Singh promised to return the amount of ` 50,000/- in case of death of Tej Kaur or non-registration of registry on or before 11.10.2006. During this period, the complainant went abroad and asked his wife to get the registry done on his behalf from Tej Kaur and Gurbax Singh. They both on one pretext or the other, delayed the matter and registry was not done. In the end on 11.10.2006, the wife of complainant Manpreet Kaur was present in the Tehsil Complex on the whole day along with the money but both Tej Kaur and Gurbax Singh were not present at the time of registry. The wife of the complainant i.e. Manpreet Kaur recorded her presence in the Office of Sub-Registrar in the evening and also got attested/verified her affidavit from Tehsildar. The complainant came to know that Gurbax Singh has got the registry of the said land in his favour on 22.06.2006 and further sold the same to one Shamsher Singh son of Gurdev Singh r/o Village Raipur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar vide registered Sale deed dated 07.09.2006. The complainant went abroad during the said period and appointed his wife Manpreet Kaur as his attorney holder for the purpose of Registry. Thus, as per the averments of the complainant/respondent, thereafter, they did not turn up for registry and Gurbax Singh got Gift Deed of the said land into his own name from Tej Kaur and further sold the same land to one Shamsher Singh son of Gurdev Singh r/o Village Raipur. Thus, on the basis of the said facts, it was pleaded that the petitioners have played fraud upon him. Accordingly, the present FIR has been lodged. Meanwhile, a Civil Suit No.C.S. 29 dated 08.02.2007 was also filed before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Ropar by respondent No.2- Crl. Misc. No.M-29225 of 2009 3 Bhupinder Singh. The said Civil Suit was with regard to possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 13.04.2006 for selling the same land as mentioned by Bhupinder Singh-complainant. Further, it was asked to declare both the sale deeds as illegal, null and void. The said Civil Suit was fixed before the Lok Adalat, where, the proceedings were withdrawn on the basis of compromise. A separate statement before the ACJ (Sr. Divn.), Ropar, in this regard, was also recorded. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, did not deny the said compromise. However, he vehemently opposed the fact that the matter qua the present FIR was compromised. It was stated that he had compromised only qua the civil suit and that there was no compromise qua the present FIR. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, did not deny that the Civil Suit was with regard to possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 13.04.2006 for selling the same land as mentioned by Bhupinder Singh-complainant in the FIR. The proceedings in the Civil Suit having been withdrawn, the continuation of the proceedings in the FIR, arising out of the same dispute which is already settled in the Civil Suit, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The argument that the said compromise was only in the Civil Suit, does not help the respondent and, therefore, deserves to be rejected. The civil dispute and the allegations in the FIR are same. The Civil Suit having been compromised and withdrawn, Section 420 IPC as alleged in the FIR, will not be made out. The allegation is that the present petitioners, in connivance with each other, refused to execute the Registry and nor did they return the money in pursuance to the agreement. The Civil Suit was filed for specific performance of the same agreement. The said dispute was compromised. The very mens rea, as required under Section 420 IPC, is missing. Crl. Misc. No.M-29225 of 2009 4 In view of the above position, the trial of the same is not likely to end in conviction and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue, which will be nothing but a wastage of time. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed and the FIR No.42 dated 03.05.2007 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar is, hereby, quashed being totally misconceived and misuse of process of law. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.42 dated 03.05.2007 registered under Sections 420 and 120- B IPC at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar on the basis of compromise Annexure P-4 are, hereby, quashed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 26.10.2010 JUDGE gurpreet