IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.33718-M of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 20, 2008
GURBACHAN SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
PARAMJIT KAUR .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. JS Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. RK Shukla, Advocate, for the respondent.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,
has been filed for quashing of criminal complaint No.31-T dated 3.1.2000
(Annexure P-1) tilted ‘Paramjit Kaur v. Gurnam Kaur and others’, pending
in the court of Sub Divisional Judiciqal Magistrate, Amloh, as also
summoning order dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner
No.3 is purchaser of property for consideration. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are
only the attesting witnesses. Qua the petitioners, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, no criminal culpability is spelt out and,
therefore, the complaint and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be
quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant contends that
Criminal Misc.33718-M of 2007 2
Gurnam Kaur and Major Singh had taken the sale consideration in lieu of
land, however, the sale deed was not executed and the money was also
retained.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case.
The gist of facts are that on 17.3.1993 one Gurnam Kaur
entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant. On the same day
i.e. 17.3.1993, by a separate agreement, Major Singh entered into an
agreement to sell property in favour of the complainant. Sale deeds,
however, were not executed. The suit for specific performance was also
not filed. This position continued till the year 1999.
Gurnam Kaur executed a sale deed on 23.12.1999 in favour
of Hari Om -petitioner No.3. The property was the same as was agreed to
be sold to the complainant under agreement dated 17.3.1993. Till that
point in time, even the suit for specific performance had not been filed by
the complainant. However, it seems that after the sale of the property, the
complainant had filed a suit for specific performance on 18.8.2000. The
suit has been dismissed. The present complaint was instituted on
3.1.2000.
The above narrated facts have not been disputed by the
learned counsel for the respondent.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
becomes evident that when the agreement to sell between Gurnam Kaur
and the complainant had not culminated into a sale deed, Gurnam Kaur
sold the property in favour of petitioner No.3 on 23.12.1999. There is no
material available on the record to indicate that petitioner No.3 had prior
Criminal Misc.33718-M of 2007 3
knowledge of the earlier agreement to sell or that petitioner No.3 was
hands in gloves with Gurnam Kaur. Qua petitioner No.3, therefore, there
is no material to indicate that his conduct was deceitful. There is no
material to indicate that petitioner No.3, in any way, dishonestly induced
the complainant to pay money or enter into an agreement to sell with
Gurnam Kaur. The basic ingredients of cheating under Section 415,
Indian Penal Code, under the circumstances of the present case, are not
made out. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are merely attesting witnesses.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed
above, the petition is allowed. Complaint (Annexure P-3), summoning
order dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent proceedings qua
the petitioners are hereby are quashed.
October 20, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE