IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-12766 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 28, 2009 Gurpreet Singh son of Gurcharan Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of an FIR registered against the petitioner on the ground that no offence is made out from the bare reading of the FIR. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his father had induced the complainant to go for the deed of which the complainant ultimately states that he has been induced. He contends that since no offence is made out and there is no specific assertion that he has induced or forced or coerced Crl. Misc. No. M-12766 of 2008 -2- or put the complainant in such a position that he had to go for the deed. The offence having not been made out, the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed. Counsel for the State, however, submits that after the investigation, challan has been presented against the accused and further the charge has been framed and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to quash the proceedings at this stage. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that clear offence is made out against the petitioner and even in the FIR, it has been specified that he was the person, who has induced the complainant to enter into an agreement leading to the loss, which the complainant had to incur and further the father of the petitioner and Surinder Kaur had thereafter entered into various agreements and sold of the land, which was agreed to be sold to the complainant as a partner along with father of the petitioner. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is true that when the case proceeds further i.e. at the stage of challan and thereafter the charge, the Court should normally not interfere in such a case, however, the matter does not end here in the present case as no offence against the petitioner is made out even at this stage. The allegations against the petitioner are only found in para-2 of the FIR, which reads as follows:- “2. That accused No. 1 Surinder Kaur met Gurcharan Singh Bansal and the applicant through accused No. 2 and wrongly induced me regarding selling her property and said that she is owner of area measuring 3850 Sq.Yards comprised in Khasra No. 16/5/1, 5/2, 17/1/1, Khata No. 87/95, as per jamabandi for Crl. Misc. No. M-12766 of 2008 -3- the year 1998-99 situated at Village Manakwal, Hadbast No. 273. The accused No. 1 also said that there is no bar on her above said property, neither she has earlier sold the above said property and nor she has mortgaged the same with anyone and agreed to sell her above said property for a sale consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rs. Forty One Lacs) to the applicant and Gurcharan Singh Bansal in the office of accused No. 2. Besides that, Gurcharan Singh Bansal and his son Gurpreet Singh (petitioner in this case) also induced the applicant separately that the above said land is a very profitable land and that we both should purchase the above said land by paying equal money.” A perusal of the above paragraph does not indicate the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. That apart, on a specific question put to the counsel for the State to read out the evidence, which has been collected by the prosecution which would show the involvement of the accused in the offence, which he is alleged to have committed, the counsel for the State has only read out the statement of the complainant which also does not specify any role of the petitioner with regard to the inducement. What has been stated is that the accused had along with his father Gurcharan Singh Bansal induced the complainant, no overt act is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. As is apparent from the statement, which has been recorded by the prosecution and the FIR, the petitioner has only been involved in the present case for the reason that he is the son of Gurcharan Singh Bansal, who had actually, as per the allegation, firstly entered into the agreement as a co-partner with the complainant and thereafter in connivance with the Crl. Misc. No. M-12766 of 2008 -4- owner of the property, namely, Surinder Kaur, taken General Power of Attorney from her in his name and thereafter proceeded to enter into various agreements to sell leading to the complainant being left defrauded leading to the initial agreement to be rendered ineffective and the complainant cheated of the earnest money and other money paid by him to Surinder Kaur on his behalf and on behalf of Gurcharan Singh Bansal. It would not be out of way to mention here that apart from these three accused, which have been mentioned in the order, there are other accused also, who had participated in the crime. However, as far as the petitioner is concerned, since no offence is made out against him in the FIR at the first instance and thereafter also the prosecution has not been able to collect any evidence prima facie to show commission of acts against the petitioner, which would constitute an offence, as is alleged to have been committed by him, the continuation of these proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No. 122 dated 16.05.2007 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) qua the petitioner and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. August 28, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) pj JUDGE