IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.360-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 HARJIT SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. GK Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. MK Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.354 dated 9.9.2007 under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar (Annexure P-1). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it was a civil transaction. The petitioners had agreed to sell a piece of land. The petitioners came present before the Sub Registrar, however, it was Dharam Singh, complainant-respondent No.2, who did not get the sale deed executed. So much so, even a civil suit under the Specific Reliefs Act is pending adjudication and, therefore, no criminal culpability is spelt out. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the petitioners clearly had criminal intent to defraud and cheat respondent Criminal Misc.360-M of 2008 2 No.2 in so much as while the petitioners had agreed to sell a bigger piece of land, only a smaller piece of land was offered for sale. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The facts, in brief, indicate that the petitioners had agreed to sell an area measuring 1055.55 square yards to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 wanted the area to be demarcated, however, the petitioners kept on evading. The petitioners, however, had received Rs.6 lacs in lieu of the agreement to sell. A perusal of Annexure P-4 i.e. the suit filed by respondent No.2, indicates that it has been the stand of respondent No.2 all through that, in fact, an area measuring 865 square yards was available with the petitioners and yet the petitioners had projected that they had an area measuring 1055.55 square yards, for sale. I do not find that it is a simplicitor case for civil action. Prima facie, criminal culpability is spelt out, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the statutory powers of the Investigating Agency. The petition is dismissed. September 1, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE