CRM No. M-5884 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-5884 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 07, 2011 Sher Singh son of Babu Ram .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Rajesh Pal Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. H.N.S.Gill, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 338 dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Kharar, District Mohali. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was filed by Matu Ram-respondent No. 2 against the CRM No. M-5884 of 2010 2 petitioner and one Jeet Ram alleging that both of them, in connivance with each other, had taken his thumb impression on some paper by saying that they will get the mutation entered in the name of the complainant but instead executed an agreement to sell. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No. 338, under Section 420 IPC was registered at Police Station Kharar against the petitioner only. He contends that this complaint is dated 28.06.2007 but prior thereto, the petitioner on 10.04.2006 had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 05.07.2004 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, against respondent No. 2- Matu Ram. Matu Ram, despite having been served, chose not to appear before the Court and, therefore, was proceeded against ex- parte leading to the passing of an ex-parte decree dated 01.04.2009 wherein the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, directed the defendant(respondent No. 2 herein) to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement dated 05.07.2004 within two months from the date of decree at the expenses of the plaintiff and further restrained respondent No. 2 from alienating the suit land as detailed in the heading of the plaint in any manner. Copy of the decree sheet has been appended as Annexure P-7 with the present petition. He, on this basis, prays that the complaint dated 28.06.2007 has been filed with a mala-fide intention and without any basis as till date, no application has been moved by respondent No. 2-complainant for setting aside the ex-parte decree nor has any challenge been laid to the decree in question. In the light of the CRM No. M-5884 of 2010 3 findings returned by the Civil Court, he contends that the basis for the complaint and the FIR cannot stand and, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submit that the bare reading of the FIR clearly makes out the commission of offence against the petitioner, for which the FIR has been registered against him. However, counsel for the complainant could not dispute the fact of the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 and thereafter, passing of the decree dated 01.04.2009 and no proceedings have neither been initiated by him for setting aside the ex-parte decree nor an appeal has been preferred challenging the said decree. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As is apparent from the record, an agreement to sell dated 05.07.2004 was entered into between the petitioner and Matu Ram-respondent No. 2. As per the pleadings in the plaint and the judgment dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P-6), respondent No. 2 refused to execute the sale deed, which resulted into the initiation of proceedings by the petitioner in the form of Suit for Specific Performance on 10.04.2006. Matu Ram-respondent No. 2 was duly served and when he did not put in appearance before the Court, he was proceeded against ex-parte. On the basis of the evidence led by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, judgment and decree dated 01.04.2009 was passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), CRM No. M-5884 of 2010 4 Kharar. In the said suit, execution of the agreement to sell dated 05.07.2004 was established and as per the findings given by the Court, it cannot be said that the agreement to sell dated 05.07.2004 was not executed by respondent No. 2 and his thumb marks were obtained for any other purpose except for the agreement to sell, which he did not put on the said agreement. The complaint dated 28.06.2007 has been initiated by respondent No. 2 after the filing of the suit for specific performance by the petitioner. This complaint has been filed with an intention to put pressure on the petitioner so that he may not pursue his civil suit and thus, with a mala-fide intention. Despite service, respondent No. 2 having not appeared before the Court, the Court had proceeded with the ex-parte decree dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P-7) and thereafter, no efforts have been made by respondent No. 2-complainant to get the said decree set aside. In view of the specific findings given by the Civil Court, which pertains to the same document, which is in issue in the FIR in question, the findings are relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, which specifically pertains to and deals with the document in question in the FIR and the same still holding good and despite there being a lapse of more than two years from the passing of the decree, the continuation of the proceedings in the present FIR, would be an abuse of process of law as the said FIR has been initiated by respondent No. 2 with a mala-fide intention. CRM No. M-5884 of 2010 5 The present petition is allowed. FIR No. 338 dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Kharar, District Mohali and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) December 07, 2011 JUDGE pj