IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 21973 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.12.2011 Satvir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Tuli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. D.B. Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 93 dated 27.11.2008 registered against him under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. As per the allegations in the FIR, the father of the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell 18 kanals 3 marlas land to the complainant at the rate of ` 6,78,000/-. The complainant paid earnest money of ` 1,98,000/- on 31.12.2005. The date was fixed for execution of the sale deed. It is alleged that due to rise in price, Sh. Sukhwant Singh father of the petitioner did not come present in the Tehsil for the date fixed on the sale deed. The complainant, however, remained present in the Tehsil complex. The complainant, thereafter, moved civil Court and got stay order in respect of land but despite the stay order and with mala fide intention, the father of the petitioner connived with his brother-in-law, Jagir Singh and transferred the land on the name of his son Satbir Singh, present petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M- 21973 of 2010 -2- The complainant had approached the petitioner and his father number of times for execution of sale deed but they have been putting him off one excuse or the other. It is on this basis, he has filed this FIR making allegation of cheating. Counsel for the petitioner submits that agreement to sell, on the basis of which the allegation of cheating are being made, is false and fabricated document. He further submits that it was blank documents on which the agreement has been prepared. The counsel further submits that khasra numbers of the land, which has been transferred on the name of the petitioner, is different from the one for which his father had allegedly entered into agreement to sell. Whether the agreement is forged or fabricated has to be proved before the Court of competent jurisdiction. On the basis of an affidavit placed on record in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this disputed issue cannot be adjudicated. Whether the land, which has been transferred on the name of the petitioner is the same for which any agreement was entered into or not, will also has to be established now before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The challan, in this case, has already been presented. It has been emphasized time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that on the basis of affidavit filed in support of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated. In this regard, reference can be made to State of Madhya Pardesh Versus Awadh Kishore Gupta, 2004 (1) RCR (Crl) 233. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as Criminal Misc. No. M- 21973 of 2010 -3- under:- “ It has also been observed that the factual position in regard to the role played by the petitioners would have to be proved by leading cogent evidence before the Trial Court. On the basis of affidavit, it will not be appropriate to hold one way or the other. The petitioners would get opportunity to raise all the defences that are available to them. It would be for the Trial Court to see if the complainant succeed in proving the allegations made in the complaint or whether the petitioners are able to establish their innocence. This Court can not assume the role of Trial Court to say that the allegations made against the petitioners, on the basis of material, would not ultimately stand proved or not. That will be the role of Trial Court.” No case for interference, therefore, is made out. Dismissed. December 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE