CRM No.M-28060 of 2011(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM No.M-28060 of 2011(O & M) Date of decision : 14.9.2011 Subhash Garg @ Subhash Chander and another ........Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioners --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prays for quashing of FIR No.24 dated 6.1.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, placed on record as Annexure P-5. The FIR has been lodged by complainant-Rakesh Kumar with the plea that he was given to understand by petitioner Subhash Garg @ Subhash Chander that a plot could be purchased @ ` 3200/-per square yard from him. Money was paid in lieu of the plot/property in installments. When the complainant approached Subhash Garg @ Subhash Chander, the accused responded by saying that when permission to register sale deeds is granted, the sale deed would be executed in respect of the plot regarding which payment had been made by the complainant. On 29.9.2010 when the complainant went to the plot at issue, Subhash Sharma and Subhash Garg also came there. At that stage, it was disclosed to the complainant that Subhash Garg was not the owner of the plot and a fraud had been committed on the complainant by way of taking ` 8,19,200/-. Complainant asked for return of the money, however, the accused CRM No.M-28060 of 2011(O & M) -2- refused to return the money and threatened to kill the complainant. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner-accused that it is a civil dispute because an agreement to sell was executed. In such circumstances, Courts on the criminal side have no jurisdiction. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the plot had been sold six times. The petitioners had the right to sell the plot, under the agreement vide which the accused had purchased the plot. The facts made available to this Court, at this stage, make it evident that the accused were not the registered owners of the property. An impression, however, was given to the contrary to the complainant. The accused received the money in lieu of the plot/property, however, admittedly, could not get the sale deed registered. Prima facie, deception is made evident from the conduct of the accused. Having taken the money, it was the duty of the petitioners to have the sale deed executed. The same having not been done, surely, culpability of the petitioners, prima facie, is made out. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter affidavits so as to record a finding that no offence has been committed, even if allegations made in the FIR are accepted to be true. In such circumstances, indulgence cannot be shown under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Nothing said herein above shall be construed as an opinion of this Court on merits of the case. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 14.9.2011 akm