1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 21072-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 4.8.2009 *** Devender Dungarwal .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is seeking quashing of complaint No.569 of 2006 titled as Atul Jain Vs. Devender Dungarwal and consequent proceedings taken therein including summoning order dated 12.6.2008 whereby the petitioner has been summoned under Sections 418 and 420 IPC. The impugned complaint has been got filed by respondent No.2 with the allegations that the petitioner launched a project named Royal City. The complainant approached him and on the assurance of petitioner to the effect that the said project has been approved by the Indore Development Authority and is having clearance from Town and Country Planning, he received Rs.71 lacs from the complainant in lieu of selling some plots in the said project. According to complainant Rs.51 lacs were paid vide different cheques while Rs.20 lacs were paid to the petitioner in cash. But lateron the transaction was not completed and the petitioner linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged in the complaint that smelling some foul play, the petitioner made enquiries about the project and came to know that the petitioner made false representation regarding obtaining of clearance certificate from Indore Development Authority and that his application for approval was rejected by the Town and Country Planning much prior to taking the amount from the complainant. On being demand, the petitioner also refused to return the amount. On these broad allegations the complaint was filed. 2 The Court below on the basis of preliminary evidence adduced in the shape of testimony of complainant and documentary evidence coupled with the report of police called under Section 202 Cr.P.C. issued the process against the petitioner, in the manned indicated above. Hence this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper book carefully. Although it has been contended that even if the whole allegations of complainant are taken to be true, then also no case is made out against the petitioner and that the dispute, if any, is purely of civil nature and calls for no criminal consequences, but a bare perusal of the impugned complaint prima facie shows that the intention of the petitioner was dishonest right from the beginning to cheat the complainant. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not disputing the receipt of Rs.71 lacs from the complainant. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from letter dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure P-3) because the authenticity of the same has yet to be ascertained. Moreover, the said permission for change of land user was granted for a period of one year in response to an application filed by Keshar Bhai Braje Singh in respect of the land situated in village Bichholi Mardana, City Indore that too subject to fulfilling of some conditions. But there is no follow up of this letter showing that the project was approved or not by the authorities concerned, since the transactions were relating to the year 2006 i.e. after the expiry of one year of the issuance of letter Annexure P-3.. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction of quashing of the criminal proceedings, but the same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and has only to be exercised in rarest and exceptional cases, which is lacking in this case. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, whatever has been said hereinabove is without prejudice to the case of the petitioner, on merits. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 4,2009 Jiten