PIARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the impugned FIR No. 528 dated 02.11.2004, under Section 420, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at P S Ratia, District Fatehabad (P3) by respondent No. 2 and all the subsequent proceedings including the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C dated 28.08.2005 as well as the impugned charge order/charge dated 30.01.2008 (P5) arising therefrom.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for quashing of the FIR submitted that respondent No. 2 has already filed a civil suit on 27.09.2004, alleging therein that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell qua his land on 31.05.2002 and as per the agreement to sell, in case, the petitioner fails to execute the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2 on the fixed dated i.e. 30.05.2003, the petitioner shall be liable to pay twice the amount of the earnest money and respondent No. 2 shall also be entitled at his option to get the sale deed executed through the process of the court and, in case, respondent No. 2 fails to perform his part of the contract, the earnest money shall be forfeited by the respondent. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid agreement to sell, respondent No. 2 also filed a civil suit for specific performance in the court of civil judge at Fatehabad, wherein, he also prayed for declaration that the sale deed No. 2396 dated 14.09.2004 registered in favour of Jasbir Kaur be set aside. It was accordingly stated that the dispute is civil dispute, for which, civil suit has already been filed. As such, criminal offence is not made out.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent/complainant vehemently opposed the same and stated that the petitioner instead of executing sale deed in favour of the respondent/complainant, executed the same in favour one Jasbir Kaur wife of Bhagwant Singh. As such, the petitioner has committed a fraud. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that the charges have since been framed against the accused/petitioner and therefore, FIR should not be quashed.