IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.45720-M of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 4, 2008
LUXMI CHAND AND ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Ramesh Achint, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,
seeks quashing of FIR No.82 dated 3.5.2006 under Sections 406, 420, 467,
468, 471, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sampla, District Rohtak
(Annexure P-3) and the report under Section 173, Code of Criminal
Procedure (Annexure P-4).
Essentially, it has been pleaded in the petition that it is a civil
dispute. The respondent-complainant has filed a suit for specific
performance of the agreement. No criminal culpability can be read in the
facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the FIR and subsequent
proceedings are required to be quashed.
Criminal Misc.45720-M of 2007 2
It is brought out that an agreement to sell was executed by the
petitioners on 23.4.2003, to sell 67 kanals 13 marlas of land. It seems that
the land is owned by the co-sharers, all family members. The last date of
execution was fixed as 22.7.2004. A total sum of Rs.53,10,000/- was
taken by the proposed vendors. Mai Chand and Inder, two of the brothers
who were co-sharers in the land, in performance of their part, executed the
sale deed on 3.9.2004, in favour of the respondent-complainant. The said
two persons have not been arrayed as accused. The date for executing the
sale deed was extended till 3.3.2005.
On the part of the petitioners, the sale deed was not executed.
The FIR has been lodged on the premise that the complainant had money
available with him and went to the office of the Sub Registrar for
execution of the sale deed, which was not done. The offences have been
committed in so much as the land has been sold in favour of other persons
in February, 2006. The earnest money has not been returned nor the sale
deed executed in favour of the respondent-complainant.
It has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the respondent-
complainant that the agreement to sell was used to extract earnest money
and the petitioners never had any intention to execute the sale deed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that
the investigation has been concluded and the final report under Section
173, Code of Criminal Procedure, has already been filed. Even charges
have been framed and the trial court is seized of the matter.
I have considered the issue involved.
The simple contention of the learned counsel for the
Criminal Misc.45720-M of 2007 3
petitioner that no criminal culpability is involved, cannot be adjudged at
this juncture. This is particularly so as the Investigating Agency has,
prima facie, found incriminating material to indicate commission of the
offences. The final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal
Procedure, along with the material has been considered by the trial court
and the trial court has framed charges. The trial court is seized of the
matter and having concluded that, prima facie, the offences are made out,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be invoked to adjudge
the petitioners innocent, after taking evidence on affidavits and counter
affidavits.
I have also considered the issue that two of the brothers, even
after the last date for execution of the sale deed i.e. 22.7.2004, executed
the sale deed on 3.9.2004 thereby accepting the extended date of
execution of sale deed i.e. 3.3.2005. It would be for the trial court to see
whether the petitioners had criminal intent or not. On the basis of
documents placed before me, it cannot be held that the petitioners are
innocent.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.
December 4, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE