PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this petition are as under :-

(2.) TOPAN Dass, the father of respondent No. 2 was the owner in possession of agricultural land situated in village Rasulpur, District Faridabad. He entered into an agreement for sale of the aforesaid land on 10.11.1991 and also received a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- as earnest money and gave a receipt thereof. It was also stipulated in the agreement that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.1992 and that on failure to do so within the stipulated time, the purchaser would be entitled to get the sale deed executed in accordance with law. Topan Dass, however, died on 9.3.1992 and the property which was the subject matter of the agreement, was mutated in the name of his legal heirs including his son, Narinder Kumar, respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter approached the respondents for the execution of the sale deed but they declined to do so. A legal notice served by the petitioners on the respondents too had no effect. Respondent No. 2 then lodged FIR No. 324 dated 8.6.1993 in Police Station, City Palwal for offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code on the plea that the agreement dated 10.11.1991 allegedly executed by his father was in fact a forgery. It is also the conceded position that petitioner No. 1 had also filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The present petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. aforesaid and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom primarily on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and as a civil suit was pending between the parties with regard to the validity or otherwise of the agreement, the very initiation of the criminal proceedings was not justified. It has further been pleaded that as the name of petitioner No. 2 did not figure in the F.I.R., there was absolutely no case made out against him and that the name of petitioner No. 3 too found mention in the challan as an accused as also a witness, which in itself was a serious contradiction.

(3.) DURING the course of the preliminary hearing, respondent No. 2 appeared in person on 4.7.1994. A reply was also filed on his behalf in which it has been averred that the civil and criminal proceedings could go simultaneously.