In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-14026 of 2004
Date of decision: 25.3.2009
Gurmit Singh etc. ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana etc. .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi , Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.151 dated
4.6.2003 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 419, 420 of the Indian
Penal Code (“IPC”- for short), registered at Police Station Shahbad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was received as an earnest money at
the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 9.9.2002, has since
been returned to the seller. Annexure P-2 in this regard was issued
by the seller/complainant Gurpreet Singh that he had received the
amount taken from him by Ranjit Kaur as an advance on account of
agreement to sell. Suit filed for specific performance of agreement to
sell in question was dismissed as withdrawn vide Annexure P-3.
A perusal of the FIR reveals that an agreement to sell
was executed between the complainant and Ranjit Kaur on 9.9.2002.
As per the same Ranjit Kaur had agreed to sell the land in question
Criminal Misc. No.M-14026 of 2004 -2-
for a consideration of Rs.5,15,000/-. Ranjit Kaur received Rs.
3,00,000/- as earnest money and agreed to get the sale deed
registered on 13.11.2002. Since Ranjit Kaur did not get the sale
deed registered, suit was filed for specific performance in the civil
Court. Complainant came to know that the agreement to sell was, in
fact, not signed by Ranjit Kaur but Narender Kaur, second wife of
Gurmeet Singh, impersonated as Ranjit Kaur. As per Annexure P-2,
complainant has received the amount of earnest money from Ranjit
Kaur and the agreement to sell stood cancelled. In the Lok Adalat,
the suit filed by the complainant for specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 9.9.2002 was got dismissed as withdrawn.
In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal
proceedings on the basis of agreement to sell, which already stands
cancelled, would be abuse of process of Court.
Service was ordered to be effected on respondent No.2
through dasti process, but none has appeared on his behalf despite
service.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.151 dated
4.6.2003 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 419, 420 IPC, registered at
Police Station Shahbad and all the subsequent proceedings, arising
therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 25, 2009
anita