BIPIN KUMAR BHATNAGAR Vs. RAGHBIR SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BIPIN Kumar Bhatnagar has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing. the complainant Annexure P/1 under Sections 42/406 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala and subsequent proceedings, including the order of summoning dated 23-8-1988 Annexure P/2, being illegal and amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Raghbir Saran filed a complaint against the petitioner on the allegations that he and his son Sham Sunder, on a representation made by the petitioner, agreed to purchase house No. 76 known as Manauli House, Ambala City for a sum of Rs. 87,500/- on 22-1988. The petitioner received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money and issued a receipt for the same wherein it was mentioned that he will receive the' balance amount of the sale price amounting to Rs. 77,500/- by 30th June, 1988. It was also represented that this house had been inherited by his adoptive mother Mrs. Sushila Bhatnagar. Before 30th June, 1988 the house was transferred by Bipin Kumar Bhatnagar petitioner and Shakuntla Bhatnagar to Jaipal and others. The petitioner dishonestly induced the complainant and his son to pay him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- representing that he was the a absolute owner of the house and was competent to transfer the same. After the sale of the house on 11-3-1988 to Jaipal and others the amount of earnest money was not returned to the complainant but it was misappropriated by the petitioner and was converted to his own use. After preliminary evidence was recorded, order Annexure P/2 was passed summoning Bipin Kumar Bhatnagar to stand trial for offences under Sections 420/406 IPC.

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if the execution of the receipt is admitted then at the most it was a case of civil liability and the proper course for the complainant was to have recourse to a civil remedy. Criminal prosecution of the petitioner was launched simply to pressurise him with some ulterior motive. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K.K. Aggarwal placed reliance on the case of Tek Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1991 (1) CLR 38. In this case the allegations against the accused were that they only represented themselves as owners of a piece of land and induced the complainant to pay its agreed price of Rs. 27,000/- A case under Sections 420/406 IPC was registered against the accused. It was held that in the present case where execution of the agreement, passing of the alleged consideration the extent of title etc. are in question, is in fact a dispute of civil nature and consequently the first information report was quashed.