G. P. PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India relates to quashment of First Information Report No. 52 registered on 2-4-1989 against the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 426, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings taken thereunder. The brief facts-relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from the impugned first information report lodged by Manjit Singh complainant are that the accused petitioner offered to sell house No. 21-A, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana to the complainant, who was interested in buying the same., The bargain was struck for Rs. 3,28,000/- The agreement for sale,was duly executed between the parties on 6th of March, 1985. It was further pleaded that vide agreement the accused gave false assurance that the house was absolutely free from encumbrances and he had a clear and marketable title to the property. The accused. also gave affidavit and surety bond and declared that the original deed was lost somewhere and it was not lying in any Bank or Institution and the house was not mortgaged to any one.

(2.) THE complainant bonafide believing the documents, agreed to purchase the said Kothi and paid of Rs. 3,28.000/- on different dates. The complainant was amazed when he received a letter on 19th of March, 1985 from State Bank of Patiala, Miller Ganj Branch to the effect that the property was already mortgaged with the said Bank and the original sale deed was lying with the Bank and the accused petitioner could not sell the Kothi without redeeming the same from the Bank and his title was not clear. I was also alleged that the accused gave false particulars and assurance and intentionally sold the encumbered property and committed fraud and deceived the complainant of his money.

(3.) MANJIT Singh complainant in his reply admitted registration of the impugned first information report against the petitioner and also admitted execution of agreement for sale dated 6-3-1985, as well as the fact that the petitioner had sworn affidavit and surety bond on 11-8-1985 stating that property in question had not been mortgaged, transferred or pledged with any one and that the original title deed has been lost somewhere. It was further pleaded that even after receipt of notice from the Bank on 19-3-85 the petitioner had been assuring the purchaser about the validity of his assertions made in the agreement to sell, affidavit and surety bond. Execution of eight sale deeds on different dates was also admitted and it was pleaded that the vendee got two sales deed executed on 1-3-1985 having paid Rs. 80,000/- and also Rs. 8,000/- as earnest money on the date of agreement and was not in a position to withdraw from the bargain. It was also pleaded that on the protest with regard to misrepresentation/fraud committed by the petitioner on 11-7-1985 RS. 1,60,000/- i. e. sale proceeds of the four sale deeds were deposited by the petitioner in a joint account with the complainant in Oriental Bank of Commerce with the undertaking that only such amount was payable to the Bank and the was same withdrawn on 7-7-1985 and deposited in the loan account on 2-8-1985. The Bank notice dated 19-3-1985 did not reveal any outstanding amount so the vendee was misled to believe that it' was only Rs. 1,60,000/. whereas the amount claimed by the bank was more than Rs. 3,00,000/-.