Crl.Misc.No.M-45 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-45 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25 - 5 - 2009 Bhanta and another .....Petitioners v. Pirthi and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed by Bhanta and Dhanta sons of Kahna. They seek quashing of complaint dated 15.5.2006, Annexure P-1, titled 'Pirthi v. Bhanta etc.' in which Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal had summoned the petitioners to stand trial vide summoning order dated 22.8.2008, Annexure P-2. In complaint, Annexure P-1 complainant-respondent Pirthi has stated that he is owner in possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 15 Marlas, out of land measuring 85 Kanals 12 Marlas. The necessary description of Crl.Misc.No.M-45 of 2009 [2] the land has been given in para 2 of the complaint. It was stated in the complaint that in the Khewat, the share of the petitioner was only 3 Kanals 15 Marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1986-86. It is further stated in the complaint that in the year 1987 complainant agreed to sell the land which was in his name of the above mentioned Khewat alone to the accused- petitioners for a sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- per acre and the land measuring 3 Kanals 13 Marlas was to be sold for a sale consideration of Rs.19,662/-. It is stated that the accused instead of getting jamabandi for the year 1985-86, relied upon jamabandi for the year 1980-81 wherein complainant was shown as owner of 7 Kanals 3 Marlas of land instead of 3 Kanals 15 Marlas of land. It is stated that on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1980-81, a sale deed was executed, in which land measuring 3 Kanals 7 Marlas was mentioned. Sale deed has been annexed as Annexure P-8. Sale deed was executed on 8.6.1987. Agreement to sell, Annexure P-7 was also executed before execution of the sale deed on 20.2.1987. Mr.Vineet Chaudhary appearing for respondent No.1 has stated that complainant-respondent had filed a civil suit which was dismissed, therefore, criminal intention on his part is writ large. It is further submitted that the complainant-respondent has filed another civil suit which is still pending. Therefore, the present petition cannot be entertained for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. This Court should keep the proceedings in abeyance till the civil suit filed by the complainant is decided. Mr.A.S.Kalra appearing for the accused-petitioners has stated that in fact jamabandi for the year 1980-81 was produced by the complainant-respondent and on the basis of the same, agreement to sell and Crl.Misc.No.M-45 of 2009 [3] sale deed were executed. In the present case, agreement to sell, Annexure P-7 was executed on 20.2.1987, in pursuance of which sale deed, Annexure P-8 was executed on 8.6.1987. The complaint has been filed in the year 2006. It is too late now to say after 21 years that complainant was not aware of the agreement to sell and sale deed, therefore, he has been duped. Complainant has already taken recourse to the civil remedy. No intention can be attributed to the petitioners. Hence, the present petition is allowed. The impugned complaint along with the summoning order is quashed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 25, 2009. JUDGE RC