Crl.Misc.No.M-11842 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-11842 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22 - 4 - 2009 Balbir Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Balwant Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.H.PS.Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal complaint bearing No.205 dated 21.11.2003 filed by Balwant Singh respondent wherein petitioners have been summoned to stand trial vide summoning order dated 10.4.2007 under Sections 420, 342, 323 and 34 IPC. The dispute between the petitioners and the respondent essentially revolves around the purchase of a harvesting combine. In the present case, impugned complaint was instituted by the respondent in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha on 21.11.2005. In the Crl.Misc.No.M-11842 of 2008 [2] complaint, it has been stated that Balbir Singh accused-petitioner No.1 along with his father Swaran Singh had entered into an agreement to purchase a combine. Loan of Rs.6 lacs was taken by Swaran Singh. The agreement was for a total consideration of Rs.7,90,000/-. Out of total amount of Rs.6 lacs of loan, Rs.One lac was taken back from the complainant by Balbir Singh and his father. An agreement to this effect was executed which was attested by the witnesses. The harvesting combine was given to the accused and at that time balance amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was due. According to the complainant, the same was to be paid by the accused- petitioners in two installments of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/-. These installments were to be paid on 31.5.1999 and 31.10.1999. It is stated that delivery of combine was taken by Balbir Singh and his father Swaran Singh. Swaran Singh is stated to have died. Petitioner No.2 Gurmail Singh @ Bittu is brother of Balbir Singh and another son of Swaran Singh. It had been pleaded in the complaint that Balbir Singh had paid Rs.1,35,000/- out of balance amount of Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.1,55,000/- was due towards the sale of harvesting combine. It is stated that a demand of Rs.1,55,000/- was made to the accused-petitioners many times but they had not paid the amount. It is further stated in the complaint that on 28.8.2004 the present petitioners along with SI Manoj Machra, Police Station Anupgarh came to the workshop of the complainant at 1.00 P.M. They took the complainant to Police Station Anupgarh where complainant was locked in custody and he was forced to sign blank papers. Mr.Ashwani Bakshi appearing for the petitioners has stated that the complaint was filed on 21.11.2005. Earlier thereto petitioner Balbir Crl.Misc.No.M-11842 of 2008 [3] Singh had lodged case FIR No.385 dated 2.8.2004 at Police Station Anupgarh (Rajasthan). The FIR has been annexed as Annexure P3. It is stated in the FIR that father of the complainant i.e. petitioner No.1 had taken loan of Rs.6 lacs by mortgaging his land and a draft of Rs.6 lacs was prepared in favour of firm of respondent No.1-complainant. The petitioner along with his father as stated in the FIR, went to the office of Regional Transport Authority, Ganganagar for registration of harvesting combine. It was told that the combine manufactured by the complainant cannot be registered. It is further alleged that when petitioners approached the complainant, he stated that they should sign the blank papers and he will get the harvesting combine registered. It was further stated that father of the petitioner had died and they had repeatedly approached the complainant to get the combine registered but the complainant was not doing the needful. It has been stated that their signatures on blank papers have been taken and fraud has been committed upon them. Mr.Bakshi has stated that present complaint is a counter blast and defence to be raised by the complainant, who is accused in the FIR registered at Anupgarh at the instance of petitioner No.1. It has been further submitted that at the time of purchase of combine, whole amount was paid, therefore, no cheating can be attributed to the petitioners as at that time Rs.6 lacs by way of bank draft were handed over to the respondent-complainant and the draft was to be encashed by him. It has been further submitted that as per quotation given, the price was Rs.6 lacs, therefore, a false plea has been raised in the complaint that petitioners have to pay another amount of Rs.2,90,000/- as price was higher. It has been further submitted that story that after encashment of the draft, Rs.One lac was returned has been Crl.Misc.No.M-11842 of 2008 [4] concocted as there is no receipt with the complainant to show that Rs.One lac was returned after encashment of the draft. Mr.Bakshi has further stated that in pursuance to registration of FIR No.385 dated 2.8.2004, complainant was arrested by the police of Anupgarh (Rajasthan), therefore, no offence of unlawful confinement is made out. Having said that no offence under Section 342 IPC is made out, it is stated that allegedly simple injuries have been caused and no offence under Section 323 IPC is made out as there is no corresponding injuries as complainant was not medico legally examined. Hence, the impugned complaint is a counter blast to the FIR. Mr.Bakshi has further stated that even if the allegations in the complaint are believed to be true, the institution of complaint by the respondent-complainant is an abuse of the process of law for recovery of alleged balance amount of the sale proceeds. It is a civil dispute and the remedy available to complainant is to file a suit for recovery and no offence of cheating is made out. Mr.Ghuman appearing for the respondent-complainant has stated whether the allegations are true or false, can can only be determined during the course of trial. This Court is conscious of the fact that FIR Annexure P-3 has been lodged by petitioner No.1 in the State of Rajasthan prior in time to the institution of the complaint where essentially the dispute and the controversy involved is regarding sale and purchase of harvesting combine. What has been stated in the complaint, Annexure P-5, is a defence to the FIR lodged at the instance of the petitioners; vice versa what has been stated in the FIR, is defence of the petitioners to the complaint case. Both the FIR case and the complaint case are required to be tried separately but Crl.Misc.No.M-11842 of 2008 [5] simultaneously. Since this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to order to trial of both the cases together, this petition is disposed off with a direction that proceedings arising out of complaint, Annexure P-5 and summoning order, Annexure P6 shall remain stayed and shall be kept in abeyance till the case arising out of FIR No.385 dated 2.8.2004 registered at Anupgarh in Rajasthan is decided. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALI ) April 22, 2009. JUDGE RC