CRM No. M-20695 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-20695 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 17, 2011 Gurtek Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 219, dated 28.09.2009 registered under Sections 419/420/34 IPC at Police Station City Muktsar, District Muktsar (Annexure P-7). Counsel for the petitioners contends that the present petition emanates out of a purely civil dispute which has arisen out of two agreements to sell, which are alleged to have been executed between Gurtek Singh @ Tek Singh-petitioner No. 1 with Kuldeep Singh, who is son CRM No. M-20695 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of respondent No. 2 and Sukhdev Singh-petitioner No. 2 with Jagdev Singh-respondent No. 2-complainant. Both these agreements to sell are dated 12.02.2007. Petitioners are brothers. He contends that when the agreements to sell were not given effect to, as per the allegations, respondent No. 2-complainant Jagdev Singh and his son Kuldeep Singh filed civil suits on 19.10.2007. Jagdev Singh-respondent No. 2 filed a suit against Sukhdev Singh-petitioner No. 2 whereas Kuldeep Singh, who is son of respondent No. 2, filed a suit against Gurtek Singh-petitioner No. 1 praying therein for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.02.2007 relating to the land in question, which was subject of the agreement to sell for a total consideration of the amount, which was agreed to between the parties and further to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the agreement with a further direction to the respondent-defendant to do all acts which are necessary to put the plaintiff in actual possession of the suit land as owner with a further alternative prayer that the plaintiff may be granted a decree for recovery of amount, which has been paid as earnest money along with compensation and damages for breach of terms of the agreement committed by the defendant along with costs of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, an application dated 07.01.2009, for the first time, was moved by complainant-Jagdev Singh against the petitioners before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. During the investigation, a statement was made by Jagdev Singh-complainant that the application, which has been submitted by him on 07.01.2009, has not been typed as per his instructions and the names of the persons given therein were wrongly mentioned and accordingly, CRM No. M-20695 of 2010 (O&M) 3 prayed for withdrawal of the said application with liberty to file a fresh one. This application was permitted to be withdrawn on 27.07.2009 but during the interregnum, Jagdev Singh-complainant filed another application dated 23.04.2009, which, on enquiry, was converted into an FIR No. 219 dated 28.09.2009 (Annexure P-7). This FIR, according to the counsel for the petitioners, is an abuse of process of law as a civil dispute has been converted into a criminal dispute and has been so moulded as to put pressure on the petitioners to get the sale executed by them. He contends that the stand of the petitioners is that these agreements to sell were never executed by them, for which civil suits are already pending as preferred by respondent No. 2-complainant and his son and, therefore, the present FIR cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant submits that the mala-fide intention of the petitioners can be gauged from the fact that they are even disputing the execution of the agreement to sell. They are also denying the receipt of earnest money paid to them and it was never their intention to give effect to the agreement to sell rather clearly they wanted to cheat the complainant and, therefore, had entered into an agreement just to take the money from the complainant with an intention never to return the same. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The facts, as stated by the counsel for the petitioners and recorded herein above, clearly spell out that even if the contents of the FIR are taken to be correct and the facts, as not disputed by the counsel for the complainant, agreements to sell were entered into between the parties on CRM No. M-20695 of 2010 (O&M) 4 12.02.2007. When the said agreements to sell were not given effect to by the petitioners, civil suits were filed by the complainant and his son Kuldeep Sngh on 19.10.2007, copies thereof are appended as Annexures P-1 and P-3 respectively. After a period of more than one year and three months, an application was initially moved by the complainant dated 07.01.2009 against the petitioners, which was withdrawn subsequently on 27.07.2009 but during the interregnum, a fresh application dated 23.04.2009 was submitted by the complainant, on the basis of which, FIR No. 219 dated 28.09.2009 under Sections 419/420/34 IPC was registered at Police Station City Muktsar. The facts clearly indicate that the complainant has already approached the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, which was a simple civil dispute with regard to the non- execution of the sale deed as per the agreement to sell dated 12.02.2007. The FIR also does not clearly indicate as to how the criminal liability would come out against the petitioners. The dispute was a purely civil dispute, for which the complainant had taken recourse to the remedy available to him under law and the present FIR, which has been got registered by the complainant after a belated period of more than one year, is with an intention to put pressure on the petitioners by resorting to criminal prosecution, which is not permissible under law when the dispute is a civil dispute. The contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that it was always the intention of the petitioners to cheat the complainant, does not appear to be correct merely because the petitioners have denied the execution of the agreement to sell and the receipt of the earnest money, would not bring out an intention, which is being sought to be projected by the counsel for the complainant. The intention has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, no such CRM No. M-20695 of 2010 (O&M) 5 mala-fide intention or mens rea is present. Therefore, continuance of the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not be less than an abuse of process of law, which cannot be allowed to be permitted. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 219, dated 28.09.2009 registered under Sections 419/420/34 IPC at Police Station City Muktsar, District Muktsar (Annexure P-7) along with all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) October 17, 2011 JUDGE pj