Crl. Misc. No. M-1712 of 2008 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-1712 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.9.2011. Mahinder Singh ........Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Haryana for the respondent No.1. Mr. J.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 158 dated 28.7.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 418, 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Manisha Goyal versus State of Punjab 2006(1) RCR Crl. Misc. No. M-1712 of 2008 (O&M) -2 - (Criminal) 162', wherein it was held that in a case of breach of contract, no offence of misappropriation could be said to be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next placed reliance on 'Arun Kumar and another versus State of Punjab and another 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 793', wherein similar view was taken. Learned state counsel and counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioner had also filed a complaint against respondent No.2 and others for an offence under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC. The petitioner had cheated the complainant as the sale deed had been executed in favour of Baljit Singh, although the agreement to sell in question was executed between the complainant and the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The complainant has lodged the FIR in question on the allegations that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell his land to him on 08.9.2006. The petitioner had received ` 13,00,000/- towards earnest money from the complainant. The remaining amount was to be paid on or before 25.10.2006. Thereafter, the complainant again paid ` 30,00,000/- to the petitioner on 18.10.2006 and the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 15.11.2006. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the petitioner had in fact executed the sale deed in favour of Baljit Singh on 29.12.2006. The petitioner has filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed. The petitioner has also filed a complaint against respondent No.2 and others for an offence under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, Crl. Misc. No. M-1712 of 2008 (O&M) -3 - alleging therein that all the accused had entered into an agreement to sell with him. The accused had persuaded the petitioner to develop a colony over the land in question. Only an amount of ` 13,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner by respondent No.2 and others. The petitioner was made to enter an endorsement regarding receipt of ` 30,00,000/- on the back of the agreement to sell dated 08.9.2006, although no such payment was made to him. The sale deed was got executed from the petitioner by the accused on the inducement of Avtar Singh Lambardar and Hardeep Singh. Thus, in the present case, both the sides have lodged criminal proceedings against each other. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to quash the FIR in question. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 08, 2011 Gurpreet