Crl. Misc. No. M- 8405 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 8405 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2010 Manjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus Navjit Singh and others ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.) for quashing the order dated 4.6.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala and order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the complaint dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner filed under Sections 420,406,506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code was dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The case of the complainant as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in para 2 of the impugned judgment reads as under:- “ The present petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint under Sections 406/420/506/120-B IPC against accused Navjit Singh on the allegations that the Crl. Misc. No. M- 8405 of 2010 (O&M) 2 complainant had entered into an agreement with the accused No.2 to sell his land measuring 11 bighas 10 biswas situated at village Pasiana, for a sale consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- per bighas i.e. Rs. 25,30,000/- for total sale consideration and the complainant received Rs.5,50,000/- as earnest money. The accused No.1 and 2 are real brothers. The complainant had executed and registered a General Power of Attorney dated 20.1.2006 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Patiala on the inducement of all the accused persons in favour of accused No.1 regarding his land. The accused No.1 to 5 had got registered the said General Power of attorney in order to cheat the complainant, but the complainant at that time had no knowledge that the power of attorney was got executed with an ulterior motive. In the month of April, 2006 the complainant came to know that the sale deed has been registered in favour of accused No.2 on the same day, in order to cheat the complainant. On 1.3.2006 the complainant got cancelled the e said General Power of Attorney vide cancellation deed dated 1.3.2006. In the month of April, 2006 the complainant came to know that accused No.1 in conspiracy with accused No.2 to 5 had also got the sale deed executed and registered in favour of accused No.2 after getting the remaining sale consideration of Rs.19,80,000/-. After the registration of the sale deed, the complainant demanded the amount of Crl. Misc. No. M- 8405 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Rs. 19,80,000/- from the accused persons and on the intervention of the relatives and friends, accused No.2 entered into an agreement dated 21.6.2006 and categorically admitted that he has sold land measuring 11 bighas 10 biswas at the rate of Rs.2,20,000/- per bigha. In this way, the accused have cheated the complainant. The complainant also filed civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 20 lacs, which is pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala.” Petitioner in support of his case led his preliminary evidence. The learned trial Court while dismissing the complaint in para 15 of the impugned order (Annexure P-2) has held as under :- “A careful perusal of the above facts as narrated in the complainant and as reveled in the evidence of the complainant shall reveal that the complainant admittedly entered into an agreement of sale of land measuring 11 bigha 10 biswas with accused No.2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,30,000/-. The complainant admittedly received an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- as earnest money from accused No.2. The balance sale consideration was to be received by the complainant at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. This fact is also admitted by the complainant that he executed a General Power of Attorney No.4223 dt. 20.1.2006 and the same was also registered with the office of learned Sub Registrar, Patiala. This fact is also not disputed that the Crl. Misc. No. M- 8405 of 2010 (O&M) 4 sale deed by accuse No.1 being the General Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of accused No.2. This fact is also revealed in the complaint that the complainant demanded his amount of Rs.19,80,000/- from the accused persons. In this regard, the complainant had already availed his remedy by way of filing of civil suit No.85 dated 8.11.206 for recovery of Rs.20 lacs from accused No.1 and 2. The said civil suit as per the version of the complainant is still pending. The power of attorney was got cancelled by the complainant only after the sale deed was executed by accused No.1 being the general attorney of complainant in favour of accused No.2. As per the case put forward by the complainant accused No.1 received the balance sale consideration from accused No.2 and the same has not been paid to the complainant. The complainant in the General Power of Attorney dated 20.1.2006 agreed to bind himself by acts done by accused No.1 as if those acts were done by the complainant himself. Since the execution of General Power of attorney is admitted by the complainant, the complainant is prima facie bound by the acts done by accused No.1 being the general attorney of complainant. The remedy available with the complainant is to recover his amount form accused No.1 by way of filing of a suit for recovery and the said suit has already been filed. In case the complainant would really have been cheated, the Crl. Misc. No. M- 8405 of 2010 (O&M) 5 complainant should have instituted a suit for cancellation of sale deed himself. However, this has not been done. Nowhere it is recorded in the General Power of Attorney Ex.CW1/A that the amount of sale consideration received by accused No.1 shall be the Trust Money with accused No.1. The liability of accused person towards the complainant, if any is only a civil liability and the civil suit has already been instituted by the complainant prior to the institution of the present complaint. The question regarding the liability of accused person are to be decided in the said civil suit. Prima facie there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons for the offences under Section 420,506,506 and 120-B IPC.” Aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.2008, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed, he filed a revision petition and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-3). Para 8 of the said judgment reads as under :- “A perusal of the record shows that complainant Manjit Singh had entered into an agreement Ex.C-5 dated 24.10.2005, vide which he had agreed to sell his land measuring 11 bighas 10 biswas for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/- per bigha and as per his averments had received Rs. 25,30,000/- on 20.1.2006. The complainant for the reasons best known to him, appointed Navjit Singh accused No.1 to look after and manage his property Crl. Misc. No. M- 8405 of 2010 (O&M) 6 including rights to sell and manage and alienation also. Navjit Singh by dint of his being attorney of the owner/complainant Manjit Singh, sold the above said land to his brother Jagdip Singh, vide sale deed dated 1.2.2006. complainant Manjit Singh did not challenge the execution of the document of appointing his attorney and consequent execution of the sale deed but vide document dated 1.3.2006, he got the power of attorney in favour of Navjit Singh cancelled after one month of the execution of the sale deed. At the time of cancellation of his power of attorney, he had not mentioned any reason or had imputed any accusation against any of the accused, meaning thereby that the had admitted the execution of the document of giving power of attorney and the very execution of the sale deed dated 1.2.2006. Even after that, on 21.6.2006 the complainant Manjit Singh entered into an agreement with accused No.2, brother of the accused on 21.6.2006, wherein, there was no mention of any fraud or cheating or criminal breach of trust by any of the accused against the revisionist Manjit Singh, rather he had categorically admitted that the sale deed by way of which the land measuring 11 bighas 10 biswas was purchased by Jagdip Singh from Manjit Singh was valid and correct one. It is a different matter that he wanted some more profit from further selling of the land by accused No.2 Jagdip Singh. All this shows that there was no cheating of Crl. Misc. No. M- 8405 of 2010 (O&M) 7 the complainant Manjit Singh by any of the accused. In fct, the complainant Manjit Singh had given power of attorney to accused No.1 Navjit Singh of his own, which has never been challenged by him at any forum. Even the execution of the sale deed by Manjit Singh in the capacity of General Power of Attorney of complainant in favour of his brother Jagdip Singh has been admitted by the complainant Manjit Singh in the agreement dated 2`1.6.2006 Ex.CW1/F on the file. This document clearly shows that the complainant was never got cheated by any one and as such, the accused persons were rightly not summoned by the learned Magistrate. Even otherwise also, the plaint Ex.CW5/A shows that it was a civil dispute which was being contested by the accused persons by way of filing their written statement Ex.CW5/B.” The reasons given by the Courts below while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner are sound reasons. The dispute in the present case is a civil dispute and the petitioner has already resorted to his civil remedy by filing a suit for recovery. In these circumstances, no ground for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 17, 2010 JUDGE Anand