Criminal Misc. No. M- 5275 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No. M- 5275 of 2009 Date of decision:- 30.5.2011 Madan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 2. Criminal Misc. No. M- 722 of 2009 Rattan Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 3. Criminal Misc. No. M- 28116 of 2009 Sukhwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate (in CRM No.M-5275 of 2009) and Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate (in CRM No.M-722 of 2009) and Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate (in CRM No.M-28116 of 2009) for the petitioner(s). Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Criminal Misc. No. M- 5275 of 2009 -2- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.79 dated 24.9.2008 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC (and under Sections 467,468 and 471 IPC added later on vide DDR No.22 dated 19.11.2008) registered at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Criminal Misc. No. M-5275 of 2009. As per FIR Deepak Kumar is having land at Village Parmanand, where accused No.4 Ratanpal Dahla used to visit him. In June 2006 accused Ratanpal introduced one person Madan Lal @ Maddi that he was a property dealer and deals in selling and purchasing of land and there was a land for sale in Village Chak Gadadhar, Tehsil and District Kathua (Jammu & Kashmir). The petitioner was made to belief that this dealer is having about 83 Kanals of land at village Chak Gadadhar and Sukhwinder Singh accused No.1 is owner of the same. Accused Ratanpal Dahla and Madan @ Maddi were aware of the fact that accused Sukhwinder Singh did not have the above mentioned land. All the above mentioned three accused in connivance with each other and by alluring the petitioner that the land was very reasonable and got an agreement dated 06.7.2006 executed at tehsil Dinanagar regarding land measuring 83 Kanals in the presence of witnesses. Accused Sukhwinder Singh received Rs.15,00,000/- from the petitioner. It was agreed to get the land registered on 26.7.2006 or till the last date i.e. 30.1.2007. On 28.8.2006 accused Sukhwinder Singh executed sale deed in favour of Shri Mahesh Chander @ Ramesh Chander son of Kishan Dayal accused No.2 and thereafter on 11.9.2006 accused Mahesh Chander @ Criminal Misc. No. M- 5275 of 2009 -3- Ramesh Chander and accused Pawan Kumar No.3 executed an agreement in favour of petitioner on 12.9.2006 and got registered the power of atrorney at Tehsil Pathankot of the land which was mentioned in the agreement dated 11.9.2006 projecting Mahesh Chander @ Ramesh Chander as the owner. Accused Sukhwinder Singh had already received Rs.15,00,000/- as earnest money and had agreed to execute sale deed by 30.1.2007. Petitioner on inquiry came to know that the aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh, accused and Mahesh Chander @ Ramesh Chander have executed a sale deed to some third person namely Rakesh Singh on 21.9.2007. All the three accused connived with each other had committed cheating. Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the allegations against the petitioner are that he introduced the complainant to Sukhwinder Singh. In fact Sukhwinder Singh son of Mehanga Singh was holder of general power of attorney pertaining to 83 Kanals of land in Village Chak Gadha Dhar, Tehsil and District Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir. The complainant had contacted him and vide agreement to sell dated 06.7.2006 paid Rs.15,00,000/- as earnest money to Sukhwinder Singh. As the land was in Jammu and Kashmir, the complainant wanted the sale in favour of his brother, who was in Army and being a student in Sri Nagar, was a subject of state and therefore could purchase the property in Jammu and Kashmir. The sale deed could not be executed in favour of brother of the complainant as he was not the resident of Jammu and Kashmir. After exercising due pressure, Sukhwinder Singh was pressurized to return the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Subsequently 25 kanals, out of the said land was sold to Mahesh Chander @ Ramesh Chander on 28.8.2006. These persons are residents of Jammu and Kashmir and capable to purchase the land in question. Ultimately, the sale proceeds of this sale were paid to the complainant and the Criminal Misc. No. M- 5275 of 2009 -4- complainant had executed a writing on the back of agreement “agreement stands cancelled”. There is no cheating with the complainant. A criminal complaint has been filed by one Mahesh Chander @ Ramesh Chander, the vendee from Sukhwinder Singh. The allegations in the complaint were that the present complainant has forged the power of attorney allegedly executed by Mahesh Chander @ Ramesh Chander, which was prepared in Pathankot pertaining to property in Jammu and Kashmir. This document has been executed to usurp the land purchased by Mahesh Chander @ Ramesh Chander from Sukhwinder Singh, even though complainant has received back the money and cancelled the agreement to sell. The complaint dated 23.5.2008 is Annexure P-3. The land measuring 83 Kanals was in the ownership of children of Dhyan Singh and Veer Singh, who were real brothers. Three power of attorneys were executed on different dates in favour of Sukhwinder Singh. Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6 are the affidavits dated 01.7.2006 and 12.7.2006 and have been given by the owners in possession of 83 Kanals to Sukhwinder Singh. The allegations in the FIR are that on the date of agreement to sell dated 06.7.2006 Sukhwinder Singh did not have power of attorney to sell the land and thus cheated the complainant which amounts to commission of an offence. The sale deed was to be executed by 26.7.2006 and time was extended upto 30.1.2007. After making sale to Mahesh Chander @ Ramesh Chander, now Sukhwinder Singh has the power of attorney of the land measuring 58 Kanals. The petitioner was the property dealer and in view of the facts narrated above he was the beneficiary in the sale. Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate in support of his submissions sites Ram Biraji Devi and another versus Umesh Kumar Singh and another 2006(3) SCC (Crl.) 176 , Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others 2007(4) RCR 548 (SC) , Bisham Dev versus Criminal Misc. No. M- 5275 of 2009 -5- State of Haryana 1991(3) RCR 555, Mohinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(2) RCR 540 to contend that the dispute in the present case was of civil in nature and does not attract the criminal liability under Sections 420,120-B,467,468 and 471 IPC. Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab has argued that after registration of the complaint, the matter was entrusted to Mr. Karamjit Singh, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Pathankot for inquiry. During the inquiry the complainant and the accused were summoned and it was found that accused committed the offence of cheating in connivance with each other and defrauded the complainant in FIR No.79 dated 24.9.2008. The petitioner had introduced the complainant with accused Sukhwinder Singh and represented his residential address at Jalandhar whereas later on it transpired that Sukhwinder Singh is resident of Onkar Nagar, District Gurdaspur. The petitioner had the knowledge of address. Accused Sukhwinder Singh made a power of attorney of one Karan Singh and that to in respect of only 10 Kanals 4 Marlas of land. The petitioner had allured the complainant to purchase 83 Kanals from Sukhwinder Singh. On 08.9.2006 the petitioner asked the respondent to give balance amount in respect of the said land and respondent No.2 had asked the petitioner to come to Pathankot to collect the same. The petitioner came along with Sukhwinder Singh and one Mr. Jaswant Singh, Bank Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank, Dinanagar and respondent No.2 paid the amount of Rs.28,00,000/-, which was counted by Jaswant Singh and handed over to the petitioner, who further handed over to the accused Sukhwinder Singh. The petitioner had visited at Pathankot with Sukhwinder Singh, Rattan Pal, Mahesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar and received the balance amount of Rs.5,97,000/- in respect of the said land on 11.9.2007. The said accused sold this land to some third person despite the fact that they had agreed to sell the land measuring 83 Kanals at Chak Gadadhar, Tehsil and Criminal Misc. No. M- 5275 of 2009 -6- District Kathua ( Jammu and Kashmir ) to respondent No.2. They have already received the entire consideration of Rs.48,97,000/-. IN this manner, they all connived with each other and cheated and defrauded the complainant- respondent No.2. After the agreement to sell dated 06.7.2006 the complainant has paid Rs.15,00,000/- and undertook to execute the sale deed on 26.7.2006. Thereafter, Rs.28,00,000/- were paid on 08.9.2006. Similarly, on 11.9.2006 the respondent-complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5,97,000/- to the aforesaid accused including the petitioner. Therefore, co-accused of the petitioner Sukhwinder Singh after conspiring with the other accused have received a huge amount of Rs.48,97,000/- from the complainant by giving a false promise to sell the land in question to the answering respondent. Later on, he cancelled the power of attorney and sold the land in question to one Rakesh Singh through registered sale deed on 21.9.2007. When the complainant-respondent No.2 was making efforts to report the illegal acts of the petitioner and his co-accused concerned police officials, he filed an anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on 04.1.2008 (Annexure R-1). In this order, it has been observed that an inquiry is pending before Karamjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathankot. In view of this, the application for bail was dismissed as having become infructuous. The challan was filed before the trial Court and sufficient evidence was collected during investigation, which was sufficient to prosecute the petitioners. In view of the above, no ground is made out to quash the FIR at this stage. The criminal miscellaneous petitions are hereby dismissed. 30.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE