Criminal Misc. No. 15349-M of 2006 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 15349-M of 2006 Date of decision: January 11, 2008 Jamiat Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for respondent no.2. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short “the Code”) is for quashing FIR No. 132 dated August 6, 2005 registered under Sections 420 IPC at Police Station, Hariana District Hoshiarpur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same set of allegations were made against the petitioner as well as his wife Harpreet Kaur in the FIR in question and in Criminal Misc. No. 44335-M of 2005 ( Harpreet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another ) filed by wife of petitioner Harpreet Kaur, this Court vide order dated March 1, 2006 had already quashed the FIR. Facts in brief are that petitioner being General Power of Attorney of his son Lakhbir Singh entered into an agreement to se1l on his behalf and on behalf of his son for sale of land measuring 120 kanals 16 marlas in favour of Harjit Kaur wife of Harjinder Singh, resident of village Mohal, P.S. Bhogpur, District Jalandhar for a consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre. Rs. 11 lacs was paid as earnest money. The sale deed Criminal Misc. No. 15349-M of 2006 -2- *** was to be executed on or before January 31, 2002. In pursuance to the agreement to sell, sale deed for land measuring 103 kanals 16 marlas was registered in the name of Harjinder Singh husband of Harjit Kaur on January 5, 2001. However, the sale deed for the balance land was not registered. In January, 2003 Lakhbir Singh died. His share was inherited by his mother Harpreet Kaur and his widow Sukhwinder Kaur. The sale deed for the balance land i.e. 16 kanals 19 marlas was not got registered by the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 filed civll suit for specific performance, which is pending before the Civil Court at Hoshiarpur. The FIR in question was registered on August 6, 2005 with the allegations that in the month of January, 2005, the complainant came to know that the wife of the petitioner with his connivance mortgaged part of the land in question with the Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Hoshiarpur and has thus defrauded the complainant and further that they had hatched a criminal conspiracy by not executing the sale deed in their favour of the entire land, which they had agreed to sell. It has also come on record that the loan raised by the wife of the petitioner was settled in May, 2005 before the FIR was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as allegations against the petitioner are concerned, the same do not constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC under which the FIR was registered against him. Petitioner owned 103 kanals 16 marlas of land out of the total land measuring 120 kanals 16 marlas for which he had admittedly executed sale deed in favour of the complainant. This single fact is enough to conclude that intention of the petitioner was not to cheat the complainant. As far as balance land is concerned, the submission is that a suit for specific performance filed by respondent no.2 is already pending. As regards the mortgage of the land is concerned, it is submitted that the same was done by the wife of the petitioner, who had become the owner of the land owned by her son Lakhbir Singh by way of inheritance and only thereafter it was mortgaged with the bank to raise a loan. However, before the FIR was registered taking such plea, even the loan had been settled on May 6, 2005. Criminal Misc. No. 15349-M of 2006 -3- *** Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of this Court in Manisha Goyal Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 162 and Arun Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab and another 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 793 and order passed by this Court in Harpreet Kaur's case (supra). On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that facts of the case clearly show that the intention of the petitioner from the very beginning was to cheat the complainant as sale deed for the entire land as agreed to be sold was not got registered. The land which was already sold to her was mortgaged to raise a loan. However, the factum that before the FIR was registered whatever loan raised had already been cleared, is not disputed. Neither the factum of pendency of civil suit for specific performance is denied nor the fact that in the petition filed by wife of the petitioner for quashing of FIR, had already been quashed by this Court. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in N. Devindrappa Vs. State of Karnataka JT 2007 (7) SC 35. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, I am of the considered view that the issues which are sought to be raised by the parties in the present case, infact have already been considered by this Court in Harpreet Kaur's case (supra) filed by the wife of the petitioner whereby same FIR against her was quashed. On appreciation of facts, it cannot be inferred that intention of the petitioner from day one was to cheat the respondent as out of total 120 kanals 16 marlas land agreed to be sold, sale deed for 103 kanals 16 marlas of land was admittedly executed and it was only 16 kanals 19 marlas of land which remained for which certain dispute arose. In Ram Biraji Devi and another Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 308, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has opined that where the dispute was with regard to sale of property against which some advance was raised, refusal to execute the written agreement was merely a civil liability. Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & another Vs. Criminal Misc. No. 15349-M of 2006 -4- *** State of Uttaranchal & others 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 548. In Arun Kumar's case (supra), this Court while dealing with the petition for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 406/420 IPC in similar facts opined that same deserved to be quashed as no evidence of cheating was made out as the complainant had remedy for filing civil suit for specific performance. In the present case, the civil suit for specific performance filed by the complainant is already pending. Judgment in N. Devindrappa's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the respondent is distinguishable on the facts as in that case accused induced the complainant to part with the amount for sale of plot, which he did not own. For the aforesaid reasons, FIR No. 132 dated August 6, 2005 under Sections 420 IPC registered at Police Station, Hariana District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. January 11 , 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge