Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.5.2010 Radha Krishan and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.25 dated 7.2.2009, under Sections 420/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Jalalabad District Ferozepur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:- Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) 2 “1. That the all above said accused persons were introduced to the applicants by Lachman Singh s/o Shri Surjan Ram r/o Village Rora wala, Tehsil Jalalabad and the said accused persons requested the applicants for some financial help as they were in some financial difficulties and dishonestly deceived the applicants into their belief to give an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to them and they also falsely induced the applicants that they shall return our money within three months and as a security they will execute agreement for sale of their land in favour of applicants. 2) That believing the said inducement of the accused persons the applicants on 24.2.2006 gave a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- in cash as 'Amanat' to the accused persons in the presence of abovesaid Lachman Dass and one Inder Raj s/o Shri Ram Chand of village Bahmani wala and for the security of repayment of said money the accused persons executed two agreements for for sale of their land situated in the revenue limits of village Chack Balochan Wala, Tehsil Jalabad in favour of the applicants. 3) That when after the expiry of period of three months the applicants approached and requested the said accused persons to repay the said amount of Rs.35,00,000/- they used to put of the matter one one pretext or the other and Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) 3 had been giving, assurances for return of our money within a short period and we have been believing their representations. We also requested them that if they are not in a position to return the said amount of our amount then we are also ready to get the sale deed executed and registered from them but all in vain. 4) That smelling the bad intentions of accused persons on 29.5.2006 the applicants also got their presence marked for getting the sale deed of the land as per the terms and conditions of the agreements of sale executed by the accused persons. 5) That even now if the accused persons are ready to return the said amount of our amanat we are ready to get the sale deed executed and registered from the accused persons, and we always remained ready and willing for the same. 6) That the said persons are neither returning our amount amanat nor they are executing sale deeds of their land as per terms and conditions of sale agreements against the amount already paid to them in liue of amount. 7) that this application may kindly be read as a a part of our previous application. Photocopy of same is also enclosed for your reference. 8) That all the accused persons in connivance with each other have dishonestly cheated and fraudulently defrauded the applicants and they have also committed the act of criminal branch of Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) 4 trust by misappropriating our amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and they have converted our amount for their own use/profit. 9) it is therefore, prayed that a criminal case under the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code for the commission of offence of cheating, fraud, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust may kindly be registered against all the above named accused persons and they be punished and sentenced according to law and justice be given to applicants.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute in the present case was purely civil in nature and hence, the FIR was liable to be quashed. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed this petition and have submitted that the petitioners with dishonest intention had executed the agreement to sell in question and hence, had cheated the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) 6 cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) 7 rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” Admittedly, an agreement to sell was executed by petitioners No.1 and 2 to sell their land in favour of complainant Jarnail Singh, his brother Jeet Singh and Baljinder Singh on 24.2.2006. It was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed on or before 27.5.2006. However, the sale deed could not be executed between the parties on the date fixed. The case of the petitioners is that they had remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 26.5.2006 as well as 29.5.2006 as 27.5.2006 was Saturday (holiday) but the complainant party had failed to appear for registration of the sale deed. Complainant alongwith Jeet Singh and Baljinder Singh have filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell against petitioners Radha Krishan and Ashok Kumar (Annexure P-8). A perusal of the same reveals that the same has been filed on 20.5.2009. A reading of the FIR leads to the inference that it is a case of breach of contract. It may not give a rise to an offence of cheating. Since the sale deed has not been executed between the parties, then the remedy available to the complainant is civil in nature Crl.Misc.No.M- 15586 of 2009 (O&M) 8 and the complainant has already availed of that remedy by filing a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. From the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioners, at the very inception of execution of agreement to sell, had intention to cheat the complainant. It is also not a case where the petitioners were not capable of entering into the agreement to sell qua the land in question with a purchaser to constitute an offence of cheating. In these circumstances, since the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.25 dated 7.2.2009, under Sections 420/ 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Jalalabad District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 26, 2010 anita