Crl. Misc. No. M-29422 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.29422 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.9.2011 Vijay Pal ...Petitioner Versus S.P. Ahluwalia & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned complaint and consequent order of summoning as well as order framing charge passed pursuant thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire dispute is of civil nature and thus, criminal proceedings are not maintainable. According to him, there was no intention on part of the accused to cheat the complainant. Thus, there is no ground to proceed against the petitioner pursuant to the complaint. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The complaint was lodged by S.P. Ahluwalia (complainant) alleging that accused had hatched a conspiracy to defraud him. He stated that accused Vijay Pal and Jai Singh were good friends. Vijay Pal Crl. Misc. No. M-29422 of 2011 2 was owner in possession of land measuring 12 Kanals 05 Marlas to the extent of 160/245 share. The accused Vijay Pal approached the complainant on 1st July, 2007 expressing his desire to sell the land to the complainant. Co-accused Jai Singh also showed his willingness to purchase a part of the said land. Total consideration of the land was worked out as Rs.23,50,000/-. The complainant and a witness, who was present there, namely P.R. Oberoi paid Rs.3,30,000/- each to accused Vijay Pal. An agreement dated 21st July, 2004 was executed. The date for execution and registration of sale-deed on payment of balance consideration was fixed as 20th July, 2005. However, accused Vijay Pal executed a lease deed for a period of five years in favour of Jai Singh on 21st July, 2004 and in this manner they cheated the complainant and the witness P.R. Oberoi by hatching a conspiracy. Complainant thereafter preferred the instant complaint. Preliminary evidence was led before the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal. He, however, dismissed the complaint on the ground that civil remedy was available, thus, complainant was not entitled to invoke the provisions of IPC. Complainant preferred a revision petition before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad who vide his order dated 14.7.2009, Annexure P-7, allowed the same and remanded the case back to the court of Magistrate to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Vide order dated 24th September, 2009, Annexure P-8, both the accused were summoned for commission of offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC. Thereafter, arguments were heard on the question of Crl. Misc. No. M-29422 of 2011 3 framing of charge. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that in view of the evidence brought on record, it could not be said that matter was purely of civil nature and thus, charge under relevant sections was required to be framed. Accused Vijay Pal preferred a revision petition against the said order before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, who vide his order dated 12th September, 2011, came to the conclusion that there were no infirmity in the order of the trial court framing charge under Sections 420, 120-B and 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned orders, Annexure P-8 and P-9. It is evident that complainant has alleged that both the accused had hatched a conspiracy to defraud the complainant and P.R. Oberoi, who was present at the time of transaction. According to allegations, after complainant and P.R. Oberoi had paid Rs.3,30,000/- each to accused Vijay Pal, he executed a lease deed for a period of five years in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of the land. It is alleged that at the very inception of the transaction, intention of the accused was not bonafide, they had hatched a conspiracy to cheat the complainant as is obvious from their actions. Thus, argument that dispute is purely of civil nature, is without any merit and deserves to be rejected outrightly. Besides, a perusal of the order passed by the court below shows that case is now at the stage of defence evidence and arguments. All the pleas can be raised before the trial court as the trial appears to be nearing its culmination. I am of the considered view that no interference in Crl. Misc. No. M-29422 of 2011 4 inherent jurisdiction of this court is called for. Dismissed. The complaint was instituted on 8th September, 2005. Six years have elapsed since then. The trial court may ensure that no further delay takes place. It may make an effort to conclude the trial expeditiously. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 27.9.2011 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No