IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-19775 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 07, 2008 Laxmi Narayan .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.203 dated 12.6.2008 lodged for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC with Police Station, Sector 10, Gurgaon. The stand of the petitioner is recorded in Para 1 of the petition which reads as under:- “That the petitioner is a resident of Village Kadipur Tehsil & District Gurgaon (Haryana) and is an illiterate agriculturist and innocent person who knows only how to sign. He is always under the control and influence of complainant Krishan Lal Yadav who is an Advocate and is also collateral of the petitioner in fourth degree. Krishan Lal Yadav had been a Sarpanch of the village twice, Chairman of Gurgaon Block (Panchayat Samiti), Chairman of Land Development Bank, President of Youth Congress District Gurgaon and District President of District Gurgaon Rural Committee as well as office bearer of other organizations. Crl. Misc. No. M-19775 of 2008 [2] The petitioner had always been under the influence of Krishan Lal Yadav who got the signatures of the petitioner on some blank papers as petitioner had blind faith in him. He signed the same in good faith as he (petitioner) had been signing several times papers on the asking of Krishan Lal Yadav in some cases or otherwise also as Krishan Lal Yadav had been Advocate also. Krishan Lal Yadav is also doing the work of property dealing and got prepared agreement to sell but could not find the prospective purchaser and has a man, namely, Bhram Dagar who gets such sale deed executed and registered in favour of vendee.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that it was a pure and simple commercial transaction. Even though if the facts are admitted that the petitioner did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant, it would be a civil dispute and not commission of an offence. In this regard, reference has been made to Arun Kumar & Another vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 793. I have gone through the cited judgment. In Para 9, it has been noticed that the agreement to sell was not adhered to. There was no allegation that right at the beginning of the transaction, there was fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. In such a situation, the complainant had the remedy of civil suit for specific performance. He could not, however, get an FIR registered. In the case in hand, however, the defence taken by the petitioner as given out in the above reproduced part would require leading evidence. The intention would be inferred only after consideration of evidence. Merely on taking affidavit, in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the matter cannot be decided so as to quash the FIR. Crl. Misc. No. M-19775 of 2008 [3] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also taken the ground that FIR has been lodged after 30 months. No limitation is provided for the provisions invoked and therefore, this ground is not available to the petitioner. Having regard to the above, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 07, 2008 JUDGE avin