IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.4097 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 11, 2010 MOHINDER KAUR & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. MS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Satpal Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of case FIR No.137 dated 20.5.2007 under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Payal, District Ludhiana, and subsequent proceedings. It transpires that the FIR has been lodged at the instance of Khushwant Singh (respondent No.2), which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. In the FIR, it has been alleged by respondent No.2/complainant that he got purchased 4 acres of land to the petitioners from the owners of the land. The petitioners were required to pay the complainant. The money having not been paid, the petitioners have committed the offence. Criminal Misc. No.4097 -M of 2009 2 The complainant seems to be a property dealer and is stated to have booked land of which the owners are Tej Kaur and others (four persons), on payment of earnest money. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from ASI Jagroop Singh, admits that there is no agreement between the petitioners and respondent No.2. It has been contended on behalf of the Investigating Agency that there is a written agreement to sell dated 9.2.2006 between Tej Kaur and others and respondent No.2 and, therefore, the petitioners could not have purchased the land. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. Even after investigation, the Investigating Agency has not come across any document that would indicate that, at any point in time, the petitioners had fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver any property. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, it stands established on the record that Tej Kaur and others sold the land to the petitioners vide registered sale deed executed on 10.10.2006 (Annexure P- 2). The sale consideration has already been given to the original owners i.e. Tej Kaur and others. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that FIR could not have been lodged against the petitioners, as there is no document or other evidence to indicate that the petitioners had entered into an agreement with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allegedly had an agreement to purchase dated 9.2.2006 from Tej Kaur and others. Rather than filing a suit for Criminal Misc. No.4097 -M of 2009 3 specific performance against the said owners of land, it seems that respondent No.2 has taken a shortcut of approaching the police authorities for lodging of the FIR and extracting money, which would be a clear abuse of the process of law and the process of the court. In such circumstances, the FIR, as against the petitioners, cannot be sustained. Consideration of facts indicate that the petitioners have not committed any offence. Continuance of proceedings in such circumstances would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners, which would result in manifest injustice. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.137 dated 20.5.2007 under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Payal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed. May 11, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?