PRITPAL SINGH BRAR Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS ill -logical as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the complainants, to settle their score (civil dispute), by filing the false criminal complaint against the accused, is increasing day by day in our society, mounting number of pending cases in the Courts. The instant case is a burning example of such like cases. As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions arising out of the same complaint, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the relevant facts and Annexures are mentioned from CRM No. M -33007 of 2003 titled as "Pritpal Singh Brar Vs. Narinder Kumar & Ors." in subsequent portion of this judgment for ready reference in this context.

(2.) THE matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record, is that Sarv/Shri Balaki Ram, Anant Ram, Arjan Ram, Sant Ram and Ram Kumar sons of Ram Kishan, claiming themselves to be the co -sharers in the land in question, agreed to sell their shares to petitioner Rana Gurjit Singh, entered into written agreement dated 24.6.1994 (Annexure R1) and received an amount of Rs. 2 lacs in cash as earnest money from the proposed vendee in the presence of witnesses. Subsequently, the co -sharers, on receipt of a further sum of Rs. 10 lacs as additional earnest money, executed another agreement dated 14.7.1994 (Annexure R2). The sale deed was to be executed in the name of the proposed vendee or any other person of his choice on or before 30.12.1994. The co -sharers (proposed vendors) were stated to have further received a sum of Rs. 5 lacs more as additional earnest money and the period for execution/registration of the sale deed was extended on or before 30.6.1995, by way of 3rd supplementary agreement dated 14.10.1994 (Annexure R3). Thus, the co -sharers were claimed to have received total sum of Rs. 17 lacs as earnest money as part of sale consideration from proposed vendee. According to the petitioners that due to industrialization of the area, land prices shoot up and the co -sharers wanted to back out from the indicated agreements.

(3.) DISSATISFIED with the injunction order against them, Balaki Ram, one of the co -sharers, filed criminal complaint, bearing No. 11 dated 2.6.1997 (for brevity "Ist complaint") against the petitioners under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for illegally executing the agreement (Annexure R3).