HARISH KHURANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner Harish Khurana agreed to sell the plot, bearing No.880, Sector 8, situated in Urban Estate, Panipat, for a total consideration of Rs. 14 lacs premium plus remaining amount due to HUDA, to complainant Smt.Seema Rani (respondent No.2) and received an amount of Rs. 2 lacs as earnest money, by means of agreement to sell dated 15.2.2006 (Annexure P1). He has also received a sum of Rs. 5000/- as transfer fee/expenses from her. The date for transfer of the plot was mutually fixed as 3.3.2006. Instead of transferring the said plot in the name of complainant, in pursuance of the agreement to sell, the petitioner malafidely moved an application dated 20.2.2006 before the Estate Officer, HUDA to transfer the plot in the name of his wife, in order to cheat the complainant. According to the complainant that on 3.3.2006, she went to the Tehsil alongwith the balance consideration, but the petitioner did not reach there.

(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that in this manner, the petitioner-accused had cheated her and misappropriated the amount of earnest money. That being the position, a criminal case was registered against him (petitioner), vide FIR, bearing No.240 dated 25.4.2007 (Annexure P11), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420 and 406 IPC by the police of Police Station City, Panipat, in the manner described hereinbefore.

(3.) Instead of complying with the terms and conditions of agreement to sell (Annexure P1) and submitting to the jurisdiction of Magistrate, the petitioner straightway jumped to file the present petition, for quashing of the FIR (Annexure P11) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature, no criminal prosecution can be launched against him, he has probable defence, in view of the documents (Annexures P1 to P10 & P12 to P14), there is no material on record and no offence of cheating and mis-appropriation is made out against him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR (Annexure P11), in the manner detailed hereinabove.