IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-27135 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2011 Jagdeep Singh @ Jaggi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Neeru Bhatia & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.S. Katnoria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing complaint bearing No.8237 dated 8.8.2007 titled ‘Neeru Bhatia & another vs. Bhag Singh & another’ under Section 420 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and order of summoning dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure P-3). 2. It transpires that the complaint has been lodged Crl. Misc. No. M-27135 of 2009 [2] in regard to an agreement to sell. It is the admitted position that civil suit titled ‘Neeru Bhatia & another vs. Bhag Singh & another’ is pending adjudication in regard to the same agreement. As per the complaint, the main accused, Bhag Singh, has already died. Allegation against the petitioner is only of instigating the father who would be the main accused. 3. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show as to how the complaint against the petitioner can continue, particularly when the case is of civil nature and civil suit is already pending adjudication. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents has taken a very fair stand that let the complaint be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the respondents to pursue the civil suit. 6. Complaint No.8237 dated 8.8.2007 titled ‘Neeru Bhatia & another vs. Bhag Singh & another’ under Section 420 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the respondents to pursue their civil rights in civil suit. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of as cause of action does not arise. (AJAI LAMBA) August 12, 2011 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No. M-27135 of 2009 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?