IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-45759 of 2007 Date of decision : 22.01.2009 Kuldeep Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and Others ....Respondents. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR No. 113 dated 25.08.2007 registered under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Ambala. The main contention of the petitioner is that entire dispute is civil in nature and for the said dispute no FIR could be registered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to Para No. 1 of the reply which reads as under:- “ That the present case was got registered by respondent No. 3 alleging therein that accused/petitioner approached the company for sale of his land measuring 8 kanals 17 marlas Khewat No. 76 Khatauni No. 107 as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002. He further alleged that the said land was free from all encumbrances and agreement was arrived at for the sale of above land for total consideration of Rs. 46,46,250/- and company paid Rs. 6,97,000/- as advance money by way of Payee A/c. Cheque amounting to Rs. 5,72,000/- as well as cash of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The sale was to be executed on 217.09.2006 after completion of formalities. Instead of Crl. Misc No. M-45759 of 2007 -2- honoring his undertaking, the petitioner sold and sale deed executed on 19.06.2007 to a third party. Not only this, prior to entering into agreement with the respondent No. 3, the petitioner-accused had agreed to sell to some one else on 10.10.2005. The same was the fate as that of the respondent No. 3. The accused/petitioner has, thus, played a fraud. Perusal of the aforesaid para shows that allegations against the petitioner are that he executed a sale deed in favour of third party on 19.06.2007. He is thus alleged to have committed a fraud. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the matter is still under investigation and allegations in the FIR are serious in nature. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that case in hand does not call for any interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has not been shown as to how FIR in question deserves to be quashed. No inference can be drawn at this stage that there was no intention to commit the fraud at the inception of the transaction. The petition thus stands dismissed. 22.01.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE