IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-22651 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 14, 2010 S.K. Vohra & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Bhagwant Kaur .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate, for the respondent. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing summoning order dated 19.5.2007 in complaint No.27/1 dated 8.1.2007 titled `Bhagwant Kaur vs. Sulakshana Vohra & others’. It transpires that the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for commission of offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. In the complaint, it has been Crl. Misc. No. M-22651 of 2008 [2] pleaded that the complainant was induced to purchase Booth Site No.3, Sector 8, Panchkula and the complainant agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.16.50 lac. In good faith, agreement to sell dated 9.5.2005 was executed. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3.50 lac to the accused. The booth, however, was not transferred, on the premise that Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, `HUDA’) had not cleared the documents for transfer. Be that as it may, the accused again induced the complainant to part with Rs.12 lac more on the ground that the money was to be paid to HUDA. Under the circumstances, the complainant has already paid Rs.15.50 lac out of total sale consideration of Rs.16.50 lac. The petitioners have not transferred the property in favour of the complainant. The property as also money received from the complainant have been retained by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is a civil dispute. Both the sides have approached the Civil Court. Considering the nature of issue and particularly, the admission on the part of the petitioners that the property as also the money has been retained by the petitioners, I find that Crl. Misc. No. M-22651 of 2008 [3] prima facie, offence of cheating is made out. Impugned order of summoning dated 19.5.2007 notices the fact that the accused neither got the booth in question transferred in the name of the complainant nor the accused persons have obtained `No Objection Certificate’ from HUDA authorities. The order of summoning has been passed after taking into account documents Exh.C-1 to C-19 and other preliminary evidence. Evidence cannot be taken by way of taking affidavit on behalf of the petitioner- accused so as to disprove the allegations made by the complainant. Continuance of proceedings on the civil and criminal side can continue as the facts and circumstances brought out from complaint and preliminary evidence indicate commission of offence under the Indian Penal Code. No ground for interference, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 14, 2010 JUDGE avin