IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-3235 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 22, 2010 Pal Chand .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Raghuvinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.107 dated 15.8.2009 under Sections 406, 420 IPC registered with Police Station, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. In the FIR impugned before this Court, allegation against the petitioner is that he agreed to sell a piece of land to the complainant for a sum of Rs.15,81,000/-. Rs.15 Crl. Misc. No. M-3235 of 2010 [2] lac was received as earnest money. The petitioner however did not appear before the Sub Registrar so as to execute the sale deed and get it registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that documents and terms of agreement to sell would not indicate commission of offence. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has pointed out that the petitioner, in the garb of the plea that it would be a civil dispute, has been selling the same land repeatedly. I have considered the contentions. Copy of plaint titled `Naveen Kumar & Others vs. Pal Chand & Another’ has been filed in Court which is taken on record. As per the plaint, civil suit for possession of land was filed by way of specific performance of agreements to sell dated 6.2.2006 and 26.10.2006. On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that defendant No.1 in the suit (petitioner in this petition) and his brother, agreed to sell land vide the two agreements, and accepted the earnest money from the plaintiffs. The sale deed, however, was not executed. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner, civil suit was filed. Crl. Misc. No. M-3235 of 2010 [3] Having accepted the earnest money from two persons for the sale of land, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant on 14.6.2008 and received further money as advance for the same land. It has been brought out by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant got himself impleaded as party in the said civil suit and brought the facts to the notice of the Court whereupon stay was vacated. The consideration of facts and circumstances of the case above noticed indicate that so far as the conduct of the petitioner is concerned, it is made out that he first entered into agreement to sell with two persons. Sale deed was not executed, even though the petitioner had accepted a part of the sale consideration. After about two years in 2008 the petitioner again entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant. It would be for the Trial Court to decipher all the facts and come to a conclusion as to whether criminal culpability is spelt out in the action of the petitioner or not. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits to disprove the allegations made in the FIR particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case as Crl. Misc. No. M-3235 of 2010 [4] brought out by learned counsel for the complainant. It is further a matter to be noticed that investigation is still on and it would be only after conclusion of investigation that all the facts would come out. Facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant quashing of FIR. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 22, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?