RAJINDER SINGH Vs. GHANSHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a complaint filed against the petitioner by the respondent in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, under sections 420/506 of the Indian Penal Code on September 16, 1987 (Annexure P-1).

(2.) THE facts alleged in the aforesaid complaint are that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent on November 7, 1985. The agreement was regarding sale of 8 biswas (about 400 square yards) of land comprised in khasra No. 1644 in for Rs. 32,000/-. Under the agreement Rs. 4,000/- were received as advance earnest money. On the following day, another agreement was entered into between the parties whereby the petitioner agreed to sell two plots bearing Nos. 38 and 39 of 400 square yards each on Kaithal road, Karnal for Rs. 32,000/- each. When on the appointed day the respondent along with the property dealer through whom the transaction had been entered into, approached the petitioner, he represented that he owned four plots in Ram Nagar, Karnal. He offered to sell two plots out of those four plots for the same price of Rs. 32,000/- each provided the respondent paid additional advance money of Rs. 10,000/- i.e. Rs. 5,000/- for each plot. The petitioner failed to perform his part of the agreement dated November 8, 1985, and the latter agreement under which Ram Nagar plots had to be transferred. It transpired that the petitioner did not own those plots. It was on these allegations that the aforesaid complaint was filed.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I find that there is no merit in the petition. According to the allegations made in the complaint, which for the purposes of the present petition must be assumed to be true, the petitioner was not owner of plots Nos. 38 and 39 on Kaithal road nor of any plot in Ram Nagar and, therefore, it cannot be said that the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute an offence. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable, in that it was not a case where the agreement-seller was not stated to be owner of the property agreed to be sold. On the contrary, it was a case in which the agreement seller was alleged to have committed a breach of certain conditions of agreement of sale. In the facts of that case, therefore, it was held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature and resort to criminal complaint was an abuse of the process of Court.