IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-2164 of 2008 Date of decision: 27th September, 2010 Harbhajan Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) A prayer has been made in the present petition that FIR No.346 dated 08.11.2007 registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC be quashed, along with all the subsequent proceedings. FIR has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-1, a perusal whereof reveals that Sucha Singh-respondent No.2 stated that he was owner of 35 kanals 14 marlas of land situated in village Daburji, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. He had executed a General Power of Attorney qua this land in favour of one Kulwant Singh authorizing him to cultivate and maintain the above said land. On 5th May, 2007, in connection with a religious function, Sucha Singh went to his land when he was picked up by Malwinder Singh Sandhu, Superintendent of Police (Detective), Tarn Taran and his signatures were obtained on blank papers in order to show that the land belongs to Sawinder Singh- petitioner No.2. Sucha Singh-Complainant made a grievance that he had purchased this land from Sawinder Singh-petitioner No.2 on 19th November, 2001 after paying a sale consideration of Rs.8,92,500/- and Criminal Misc. No. M-2164 of 2008 he was in possession of the same. It was stated that Sawinder Singh had made a wrong complaint. The above said FIR was investigated. In the above said FIR, a complaint was made by Kulwant Singh-General Power of Attorney of Sucha Singh, which was enquired into and the Enquiry Officer came to the following conclusions: (a) Sawinder Singh had cheated Sucha Singh and Hardial Kaur at the time of execution of the sale deed by not disclosing the fact that the land was already mortgaged with Harbhajan Singh-petitioner No.1, son of Shiv Singh. (b) Harbhajan Singh had approached the Civil Court by filing a suit with a prayer that the sale deed executed by Sawinder Singh in favour of Sucha Singh was null and void. On the basis of above said conclusions, the Enquiry Officer held that prima-facie, the offence punishable under Section 420 and 120- B IPC is made out against Harbhajan Singh and Sawinder Singh-present petitioners. What is essentially a civil dispute, has been made subject matter of a criminal case. Respondent No.2 lodged case FIR No.346 dated 08.11.2007 at Police Station City Tarn Taran under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. In the FIR, a two-fold grievance has been made. Firstly, that respondent No.1 purchased land from petitioner No.2 vide a registered sale-deed dated 19th November, 2001 after paying sale consideration of Rs.8,92,500/- and the seller had not disclosed to the purchaser that the land was under mortgage. The second grievance made is that petitioner No.2-seller has later-on filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 19th November, 2001 should be declared to be a null and void document. 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-2164 of 2008 Petitioner No.2 was well within his rights to approach the civil Court to urge that the sale deed dated 19th November, 2001 be declared as null and void. Institution and filing of a civil suit is no criminal offence and for this, provisions of Section 420 IPC are not attracted. Secondly, to say that non-disclosure on the part of Sawinder Singh seller-petitioner No.2 that the land was under mortgage of Harbhajan Singh-petitioner No.1, amounts to cheating, also cannot be accepted, as the purchaser as a prudent man was required to inspect the revenue record to find out the title of the property. Had the complainant taken the care and caution as a bonafide purchaser, the factum of mortgage would have come to his notice. Furthermore, Harbhajan Singh, with whom the land had been mortgaged earlier, played no overt role and his involvement in a criminal case is a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Harbhajan Singh- petitioner No.1 has been dragged into litigation only to pressurize him to hand over possession of the land to the complainant-purchaser. It is not disputed that the Civil Court is seized of the matter regarding validity of the sale deed. If the complainant had a grievance that the fact of mortgage was not disclosed to him, the lawful remedy for him was to approach the Civil Court and seek annulment of the sale deed or to redeem the mortgage and seek damages from Sawinder Singh. Thus, taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, no offence is made out so far as the petitioners are concerned. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is hereby quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 27, 2010 rps 3