IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-29393 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 14, 2010 Jaspal Singh & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Chanbyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.97 dated 9.9.2006 under Sections 420, 506, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, Fatehgarh Churian, District Gurdaspur and consequent proceedings. It transpires that the petitioners are sons of Dr. Bawa Singh who died on 4.6.2006. Crl. Misc. No. M-29393 of 2008 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioners has given the sequence of events to the effect that the petitioners are Government employees. Dr. Bawa Singh owned some land and agreed to sell the same (land measuring 47 kanals 12 marlas) vide agreement to sell dated 25.6.2003 in favour of Baljinder Singh (respondent No.2) and two other persons namely Parminder Singh and Jagwinder Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.19.75 lac per acre. Out of the total sale consideration, a sum of Rs.22.50 lac was received by Dr. Bawa Singh as earnest money on 25.6.2003 i.e. the date of execution of agreement to sell, appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. In terms of agreement to sell, sale deed was to be registered within 1½ years i.e. on or before 25.12.2004. As per the contents in the agreement to sell, the seller was required to execute sale deeds in favour of the vendee or any other person/ persons in whose favour the vendee wanted. In case of default, the vendor i.e. Dr. Bawa Singh was to be responsible for paying fine alongwith the amount taken and the vendees could have the sale deed executed through a Court of law. In case the vendees failed to get the sale deed executed within the prescribed period, the earnest money could be forfeited. Crl. Misc. No. M-29393 of 2008 [3] In consequence to the agreement to sell, Dr. Bawa Singh executed four power of attorneys in the name of Baljinder Singh (respondent No.2). After obtaining the power of attorneys, respondent No.2 started selling the land in small pieces by way of carving plots. List of 28 sale deeds has been given in Para 6 of the petition. Further list of 12 sale deeds has been given in Para 7 of the petition. This fact is admitted by learned counsel for the respondent-State as there is no denial to this fact. Dr. Bawa Singh realised that by way of carving plots, provisions of Punjab Apartments (Rules & Regulations) Act are being violated, therefore, he cancelled all the four power of attorneys and asked respondent No.2 to get the sale deeds executed. Baljinder Singh, respondent No.2 being agitated by cancellation of power of attorneys, instituted a civil suit on 30.3.2006 for permanent injunction against Dr. Bawa Singh restraining him from alienating the land. Dr. Bawa Singh died on 4.6.2006. The petitioners being sons of Dr. Bawa Singh filed an application for being impleaded. Be that as it may, the civil suit was Crl. Misc. No. M-29393 of 2008 [4] withdrawn by respondent No.2 (plaintiff in the civil suit) on 19.9.2006. The FIR i.e. subject matter of this petition was lodged on 9.9.2006 on the allegation that three vendees of land, as noticed above, had entered into an agreement to sell for purchase of land from Dr. Bawa Singh. The amount in lieu of sale consideration was paid to the petitioners and some other family members also. The sons of Dr. Bawa Singh had no land in their name and yet money was taken. Power of attorney had initially been given by Dr. Bawa Singh which however was got cancelled lateron on account of bad intention. Two acres of land had been sold by Dr. Bawa Singh in the shape of plots to some other persons without knowledge of the complainant-vendee. The accused in the FIR are neither giving the land nor are returning the amount taken and therefore, the complainant has been cheated. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that Jaspal Singh (petitioner No.1) signed an agreement to sell between the complainants and Dr. Bawa Singh i.e. father of the petitioners, as a witness. It is the admitted case that Dr. Bawa Singh was the owner and not the petitioners. Crl. Misc. No. M-29393 of 2008 [5] Learned counsel has further contended that none of the petitioners is beneficiary. It has further been argued that the civil suit does not indicate any cause of action against the petitioners and therefore, lodging of the FIR is only an after-thought so as to extract money. It has been contended that any offence committed by Dr. Bawa Singh, would not implicate the petitioners who are the sons. Reply has not been filed on behalf of the complainant though the matter relates to the year 2008. So far as reply of respondent-State is concerned, the sale deeds, executed through respondent No.2-complainant as power of attorney, are admitted in Para 5 of reply (on merits). In regard to the contents of Para 6 and 7 in which details of sale deeds have been given, it has been stated that the submission made in these Paras need no reply. I have considered the issue. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioners, at the time when agreement to sell (Annexure P-2) was executed, were the owners of land. Petitioner No.1 is the attesting witness to the agreement to sell, however, there is nothing on record to indicate Crl. Misc. No. M-29393 of 2008 [6] that he is a beneficiary. An allegation in the FIR has been made that the petitioners received part of the sale consideration, however, this fact has been falsified by civil suit filed by respondent No.2, Baljinder Singh and another against Dr. Bawa Singh. Para 2 to 4 of the pleadings read as under:- “2. That at the time of said agreement, the plaintiffs and the said Jagwinder Singh paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- in cash and Rs.10,00,000/-through cheque to the defendant and it was agreed that the defendant will execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and said Jagwinder Singh or any other person to whom the plaintiffs will ask on or before 25.12.2004. 3. That on 19.5.2004 the defendant received a further sum of Rs.22,00,000/- from the plaintiffs and said Jagwinder Singh vide receipt dated 19.5.2004 and the defendant had acknowledged and confirmed that he has received Rs.44,50,000/- from the plaintiffs and said Jagwinder Singh as mentioned above. 4. That on 13.12.2004, the defendant again received a sum of Rs.38,85,000/- and extended the date for execution and registration of the sale deed upto 20.6.2006. The defendant executed some sale deed in favour of some persons as per the directions of the plaintiffs and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.” By way of civil suit, the first version has come at the instance of complainant, Baljinder Singh and another vendee, Parminder Singh. The civil suit does not indicate any cause of action against the petitioners as the petitioners were not even impleaded as defendants in the civil suit. In such circumstances, from the material available on record and the case set up by the complainant in Civil Court on 24.3.2006 Crl. Misc. No. M-29393 of 2008 [7] itself, it is made evident that the allegation in the FIR that money was paid to the petitioners also, stands falsified showing false implication. The petitioners filed an application for being impleaded in the civil suit after death of Dr. Bawa Singh whereupon the civil suit was withdrawn. No other civil suit has been filed by the complainant to the knowledge of the petitioners. Merely because the petitioners happen to be the sons of Dr. Bawa Singh, would not mean that they would inherit the criminal actions of Dr. Bawa Singh. Even learned counsel for the respondent-State, from the investigation file and on instructions from Tara Chand, Sub Inspector, has not been able to show any role that could be ascribed to the petitioners in committing offence, as alleged in the FIR. So far as offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, a statement has been made at the end of the FIR in the following terms:- “... Now if we ask from them about our money they threaten to kill us.” Place or time of incident has not been given and per-se the words said in this regard would not constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC. Criminal intimidation, as Crl. Misc. No. M-29393 of 2008 [8] defined under Section 503 IPC, is not spelt out from the allegations made in the FIR. The agreement of vendee(s) complainant was only with Dr. Bawa Singh, who admittedly was the only owner of the land. The money/ sale consideration was also to be paid only to Dr. Bawa Singh. Only Dr. Bawa Singh was the relevant and necessary person, in context of the agreement to sell, which is the basis of the criminal act. The power of attorney was also given by Dr. Bawa Singh which he later cancelled. The Civil suit was also filed only against Dr. Bawa Singh. The petitioners were not impleaded as defendants as no civil cause of action arose against petitioners. On the death of Dr. Bawa, the petitioners have been implicated through allegations made in the FIR. It seems that simply because the petitioners are sons of Dr. Bawa, they have been implicated. Surely, the criminal action (if any) of Dr. Bawa, cannot be made the basis of lodging FIR against his sons. The recital in the FIR in regard to receipt of money by petitioners is without any material and does not disclose their criminal acts. In regard to transfer of land or cancellation of power of Crl. Misc. No. M-29393 of 2008 [9] attorney, the petitioners could not have had any role to play, as admittedly their father Dr. Bawa only held possessory and ownership title to land. In such circumstances, on the basis of material available on record, in my considered opinion, commission of cognizable offence is not made out. In my considered opinion FIR has been lodged not because petitioners have committed any offence, but for malafide reasons. In view of the above, I find that continuance of proceedings would result in abuse of process of law and process of Court. The petition is allowed. FIR No.97 dated 9.9.2006 under Sections 420, 506, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, Fatehgarh Churian, District Gurdaspur and consequent proceedings are quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 14, 2010 JUDGE Avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?