z. INJTHEHIGH^OURT Or CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M^P. NQ. /_">fc> /2010 APPLICANT NpN-APPLICANTS 1 ^^•<y> ...^sssy T»- ««• w ^^'^::' ^*"...--^2-\ft\vp- ..-•• \v ^ -•>• Anima Singh W/o Na-resh Singh, aged about 36 years R/o Ruabhandha Sector, Bhilai, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil SE District Durg (C.G.) . VERSUS Arbind Kumar Banjare, f^eJf ciA-oiJ' 3'b yfa^ S/o Late Shri Goverdhan Lal Banjare R/o Chandi Chouk, Mathpara, Durg, . P.S. City Kotwali Durg, Tahsil SE District Durg(C:G.) 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, • Through: District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) APPUCATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUASHING CRIMINAL PROCEEDING OF COMPLAINT CASE. t^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM : BILASPUR APPLICANT NON-APPLICANTS Cr.M.P. N0.636 OF 2010 Anima Singh Versus Arbind Kumar Banjare & Another (Application under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, J, Present:- Smt. Kiran Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 23rd day ofAugust, 2010) 1, Heard on admission. 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is for quashment of the criminal complaint case No.320/2010 filed by the non-applicant No.1 pertaining to Sections 418 and 420 ofthe Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been argued by Smt. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that on 11-1-2008 (Annexure -A/1) the applicant and the non-applicant No.1 had entered into an agreement for the sale of land bearing khasra No.943 area of 0.17 hectares amounting to Rs.23,00,000/. Out of which an amount of Rs.2,01,000/- was received by the applicant and the remaining amount was to be given subsequently. Further, it is the case of the applicant that, as she could not execute the sale deed, a suit for specific performance has been filed by the non-applicant No.1 on 7-7-2008 (Annexure - A/4) and after about more than one year on 7-8-2009 (Annexure - A/2) the present complaint case has been filed and the same is nothing, but is a pressure tactic and, therefore, the complaint case should be quashed. 4, On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the State, argued that at the time of execution of the agreement it was pretended by the applicant that the entire land is recorded in her name and belongs to her, however, after filing a suit for specific performance, the non-applicant No.1 came to know that from inception the land was recorded in the name of Shanti Singh, Sumit Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh. and suppressing this material ^ E 'o. .--^•"•"•""^^ ., .-'ws. .^ ~n '^ 'yw^y fact with an intention to cheat the non-applicant No.1, an agreement dated 11-1-2008 was executed by the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that, prima facie, the offence of cheating is made out against the applicant and therefore, the complaint case cannot be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 6. From the documents, it is apparent that while entering into an agreement dated 11-1-2008 it has been shown by the applicant that she is an absolute owner of the land in question and on this strength she entered into an agreement with the non-applicant No.1. After filing of the suit for specific performance, the non- applicant No.1 came to know that the applicant is not the sole owner of the land in dispute and there are co-owners also and therefore, the non-applicant No.1 filed a complaint case saying that the applicant cheated him and has committed the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 ofthe IPC. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that, prima facie, the applicant has cheated the non-applicant No.1. It cannot be said that the present dispute is purely of civil nature and therefore, the complaint requires to be quashed. 8. In the result, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. It is made clear that the observation made by this Court hereinabove, is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the Court below will not be influenced by the same. Gowri Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge