CRM No. M-31207 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-31207 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 31, 2011 Krishan Lal son of Shri Mehar Chand .... PETITIONER Vs. Avtar Singh son of Shri Ajit Singh an others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate, for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sessions Judge, Karnal in Criminal Revision Petition No. 55 of 2009, vide which order dated 13.09.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal summoning the respondents for offence punishable under Section 406, 420 IPC stands set aside. CRM No. M-31207 of 2010 (O&M) 2 It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the learned Revisional Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the earnest money, which has been handed over by the petitioner to the respondents, was never returned to the petitioner and it was with a mala-fide intention that the agreement to sell was entered into with the petitioner by the respondents as they had, from the very beginning, wanted to retain the agreement amount and wanted to defraud the petitioner. He contends that the Revisional Court has proceeded on the assumption that the dispute is civil in nature and merely on that assumption, has proceeded to set aside the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court. Counsel for the respondents, however, contends that the learned Revisional Court has given specific reasons for coming to the conclusion, as have been recorded therein. The complaint is based on an agreement to sell, wherein there is a specific clause that in case of defraud on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was at liberty to initiate civil proceedings and enforce the agreement to sell through suit for specific performance. He contends that as is apparent from the complaint itself, the respondents had asked the petitioner to receive back the earnest money, which clearly discloses that no offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 IPC is made out against the respondents. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the light of the fact that the complaint, which has been filed against the respondents by the petitioner under Section 406 and 420 IPC, is based upon an agreement to sell, wherein a clause stood incorporated which gave liberty to the petitioner, who was a vendee, to get the CRM No. M-31207 of 2010 (O&M) 3 agreement enforced specifically through a Civil Court in case of refusal on the part of the respondents. The complaint itself states that the respondents had asked the petitioner to receive back his earnest money, which rules out any deceit, fraud or dishonest intention on the part of the respondents. The observations and the findings recorded by the learned Revisional Court are in accordance with law and are based upon the records available. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) October 31, 2011 JUDGE pj