Criminal Misc. No.M-33355 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-33355 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.7.2011 Vivek Sehgal and another ......Petitioners Versus Amita Rani .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ram Chander, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal complaint dated 26.5.2006 (Annexure P-6) under Section 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and summoning order dated 8.12.2007 (Annexure P-9). Complainant Amita Rani has filed complaint (Annexure P-6) against the petitioners and Mandeep Singh. The contents of the complaint read as under:- “1. That the accused are owners of land measuring 200 square yards comprised in khasra No.27/5/1 shown as Criminal Misc. No.M-33355 of 2009 2 plot No.27 town planning scheme No.7-B, situated within the revenue estate of village Darra Kalan, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 2. That the accused No.1 has executed an agreement to sell dated 28.1.2006 in favour of the complainant in respect of the property mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint. As per terms and conditions of the agreement to sell the total price of the land was fixed ` 12,54,000/- at the rate of ` 6,270/- per square yards. The accused No.1 received an earnest amount of ` 3,25,000/- in the presence of the witnesses. The target date for execution of the sale deed was fixed 15.5.2006. 3. That the complainant went to the office of Sub Registrar on 15.5.2006 along with remaining consideration amount for getting the sale deed in his favour. The accused did not turn up. 4. That the complainant inquired the matter and found that there is no such town planning scheme as 7-D nor there is any plot No.27, rather the suit land is an agricultural land. This land cannot be used for residential purposes. It is protected area in which no house can be constructed. 5. That the accused have induced the complainant to enter into an agreement to purchase the above said land for residential purposes and gain undue benefit by Criminal Misc. No.M-33355 of 2009 3 taken the earnest money of ` 32,5000/- 6. That if the accused would have not conceal the said fact, then the complainant would not purchase the land. The accused had played a fraud upon the complainant by concealing the true facts and thus, cheated the complainant. 7. That the said offences have been committed by the accused after hatching the criminal conspiracy at District Court campus, as accused No.2 and 3 have authorised the accused No.1 to sell the said land to the complainant, recorded in their names. The accused No.1 shown himself as owner of the land actually he is not the owner of the land. At the time of agreement, the accused No.1 has shown himself as owner of the land. 8. That an application was moved to police of Police Station, City Thanesar but the police has refused to accept the application, rather directed to file the complaint. 9. That a fixed court fee of ` 10/- is affixed on the complaint. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may be summoned, tried and punished according to law. The complaint may be sent in the police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the complaint reveals that the agreement to sell in Criminal Misc. No.M-33355 of 2009 4 question had been entered between the complainant and accused No.1 Mandeep Singh. The petitioners are not even signatories to the agreement to sell in question (Annexure P-4). Hence, the petitioners could not have been summoned to face the trial. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the agreement to sell in question (Annexure P-4) had been entered between the complainant and Mandeep Singh with the active connivance of the petitioners. All the accused, in connivance with each other had defrauded the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their Criminal Misc. No.M-33355 of 2009 5 entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the Criminal Misc. No.M-33355 of 2009 6 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-6), reproduced above, reveals that an agreement to sell had been entered into between the complainant and accused Mandeep Singh. Annexure P- 4 is the agreement to sell in question. The same has not even been signed by the petitioners. No specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners in the complaint qua their involvement in the alleged crime. It is only in para 7 of the complaint, it has been averred that accused No.2 and 3 had authorised accused No.1 to sell the land to the complainant. In the agreement to sell in question (Annexure P-4), accused Mandeep Singh has described himself as owner of the property alleged to be sold. The names of the Criminal Misc. No.M-33355 of 2009 7 petitioners do not figure in the said agreement to sell. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Criminal complaint dated 26.5.2006 (Annexure P-6) under Section 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoning order dated 8.12.2007 (Annexure P-9), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 19, 2011 anita