IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.45720-M of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 4, 2008 LUXMI CHAND AND ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ramesh Achint, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.82 dated 3.5.2006 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sampla, District Rohtak (Annexure P-3) and the report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure P-4). Essentially, it has been pleaded in the petition that it is a civil dispute. The respondent-complainant has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement. No criminal culpability can be read in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the FIR and subsequent proceedings are required to be quashed. Criminal Misc.45720-M of 2007 2 It is brought out that an agreement to sell was executed by the petitioners on 23.4.2003, to sell 67 kanals 13 marlas of land. It seems that the land is owned by the co-sharers, all family members. The last date of execution was fixed as 22.7.2004. A total sum of Rs.53,10,000/- was taken by the proposed vendors. Mai Chand and Inder, two of the brothers who were co-sharers in the land, in performance of their part, executed the sale deed on 3.9.2004, in favour of the respondent-complainant. The said two persons have not been arrayed as accused. The date for executing the sale deed was extended till 3.3.2005. On the part of the petitioners, the sale deed was not executed. The FIR has been lodged on the premise that the complainant had money available with him and went to the office of the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed, which was not done. The offences have been committed in so much as the land has been sold in favour of other persons in February, 2006. The earnest money has not been returned nor the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent-complainant. It has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the respondent- complainant that the agreement to sell was used to extract earnest money and the petitioners never had any intention to execute the sale deed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the investigation has been concluded and the final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, has already been filed. Even charges have been framed and the trial court is seized of the matter. I have considered the issue involved. The simple contention of the learned counsel for the Criminal Misc.45720-M of 2007 3 petitioner that no criminal culpability is involved, cannot be adjudged at this juncture. This is particularly so as the Investigating Agency has, prima facie, found incriminating material to indicate commission of the offences. The final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, along with the material has been considered by the trial court and the trial court has framed charges. The trial court is seized of the matter and having concluded that, prima facie, the offences are made out, in the facts and circumstances of the case, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be invoked to adjudge the petitioners innocent, after taking evidence on affidavits and counter affidavits. I have also considered the issue that two of the brothers, even after the last date for execution of the sale deed i.e. 22.7.2004, executed the sale deed on 3.9.2004 thereby accepting the extended date of execution of sale deed i.e. 3.3.2005. It would be for the trial court to see whether the petitioners had criminal intent or not. On the basis of documents placed before me, it cannot be held that the petitioners are innocent. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. December 4, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE