Crl.Rev. No.1052 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB&HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRL.REV.NO.1052 OF 2004 DATE OF DECISION:24.8.2011 SUKHDEV SHARMA AND OTHERS........................Petitioners versus STATE OF PUNJAB........................................................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present:- Mr.R.S.Athwal,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Brar,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Sabina,J. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the trial Court whereby charge was ordered to be framed against them under Sections 420,120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') in FIR No.183 dated 31.12.2002 registered at Police station City Phagwara. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers and had no knowledge of the execution of the agreement to sell in question executed by the seller in favour of the complainant-Manjit Singh. The complainant has filed a suit Crl.Rev. No.1052 of 2004 2 for specific performance of agreement to sell in question. However, the matter was compromised in Regular First Appeal No. 4519 of 2003.` 75,00,000/- were paid by the defendants to the plaintiff-Amarjit Kaur, wife of complainant-Manjit Singh. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that all the accused had acted in connivance with each other. The seller had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners although agreement to sell qua the property in question, had already been executed between seller and Amarjit Kaur. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. Petitioners are the subsequent purchasers. Harkrishan Singh was the owner of the property in question. He executed an agreement to sell qua the property in question in favour of Amarjit Kaur on 30.3.1994. Since the sale deed was not executed by the seller, Amarjit Kaur filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell in question. The seller, however, executed the sale deeds in favour of the present petitioners. The proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure were also initiated by the complainant-Amarjit Kaur qua disobedience of the interim direction passed by the trial Court in a suit filed by her for specific performance of agreement to sell in question. The suit filed by Amarjit Kaur for specific performance of agreement to sell in question was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, Harinder Singh and others prefered regular first appeal No.4519 of 2003. During the pendency of the said appeal, parties arrived at a compromise and the following order (certified copy of the order has been Crl.Rev. No.1052 of 2004 3 placed on record) was passed by this Court on 8.7.2005:- "In this application, which has been filed by the Appellants through their counsel Mr.Arun Jain and Mohit Jain, Advocates, it has been stated that the parties have settled their disputes and have entered into a compromise. A copy of the said compromise has been brought on record vide Annexure A-1. Mr.Manish Bansal, counsel appearing for Mr.Arun Jain, has produced the original of Annexure A-1 which is taken on record with a direction that it shall be kept in the records of this case. As a consequence of production of the original of Annexure A-I (the Compromise Deed), C.M. No. 2854-CI of 2005 is not pressed in which prayer was made to exempt the Appellants from filing certified copies thereof. In paragraph 3 of C.M. No. 2855, it has been stated that as per terms of compromise, it has been agreed that the Appellants will pay a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five lacs) to the contesting Respondent-Amarjit Kaur who was the plaintiff before the Court below by way of a demand draft. Mr.P.K.Jain, Advocate appearing for the plaintiff-respondent (Amarjit Kaur) submits that the sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Lacs) has already been received by the said Amarjit Kaur. He submits that Amarjit Kaur is present in Court and that the terms of compromise are fully acceptable to her. The details of the demand draft have been mentioned in the compromise Deed itself and it has been stated that she (i.e. Party of the second part in the Compromise Deed) shall do the requisite so that the party of the Crl.Rev. No.1052 of 2004 4 first part or the party of the third part become absolute owners of the property in question. It has further been stated in Paragraph 4 that the present respondent i.e. Amarjit Kaur on receipt of the said amount will have no objection if the appeal is allowed and the suit filed by her is dismissed. Since it has been stated in the Court by learned counsel appearing for Amarjit Kaur that the entire amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- has been received by the said Amarjit Kaur, this application is consequently disposed off and on the basis of the compromise recorded, the instant appeal is allowed and as a consequence thereof, the suit is dismissed. Let the compromise petition form part of the Decree with a clear understanding that each and every condition contained therein shall strictly be followed by the parties. Dasti on payment of usual charges." Since the purchaser has arrived at a compromise with the seller and had received an amount of ` 75,00,000/-, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned order dated 22.1.2004, whereby charge under Sections 420,120-B IPC was ordered to be framed against the petitioners, is quashed. Consequently, petitioners stand discharged. (Sabina) Judge August 24,2011 arya