HARBANS SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.164, dtd. 1/8/2022, under Ss. 420, 406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The FIR in question was registered against the petitioner on the basis of application dtd. 13/3/2022 moved by respondent No.2 to the DCP Investigation. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that he was the land owner and agriculturist. He entered into an agreement to purchase qua land measuring about 3 Killas comprised in specific Khasra numbers situated in Galib Kalan-2, as per Jamabandi for the year 2019-20, Hadbast No,124, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana with the petitioner at the rate of Rs.23.00 Lacs per Killa. He entered into an agreement to purchase dtd. 17/2/2021 and he paid sum of Rs.25,000.00 on 17/2/2021 and Rs.75,000.00on 20/2/2021 in cash as earnest money and it was settled between them that agreement to sell shall be executed within 15 days thereafter and date of execution of sale deed will be in the month of October, 2021. When the complainant contacted the petitioner on phone, the petitioner stopped attending his calls and was also not available at his house. The petitioner's servant used to say that the petitioner was ill and suffering from Corona and could not meet anyone. In the month of December, 2021, the complainant met a person namely, Sukhwinder Singh of village Gahaur, who told that he had also entered into agreement to sell of the above mentioned land with the petitioner in November, 2021 and the petitioner had received sum of Rs.5.00 Lacs in his account and Rs.5.00 lacs in cash as earnest money and he was not responding to his phone calls. When the complainant enquired about this person, it came to light that many cases are pending against him and his sons regarding money transactions with other persons. The petitioner had also received Rs.2.00 Lacs from one person, namely, Mohan Singh Virk, resident of Hambran as earnest money regarding the same land and the petitioner was not attending phone calls of all these persons and further threatened them that he would neither execute sale deed nor return the money. The complainant further stated that he was ready and willing to pay the remaining amount for getting the sale deed registered in his favour. On the basis of preliminary inquiry, the case was registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen and presently the Chairman of Shree Guru Harkrishan Public School, Bathinda and is former Chairman of S.G.T.D. College of Engineering and Technology, Malaudh. The petitioner is the owner of the Hotel/Restaurant, namely, Mini Holland, Dakha, which was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deeds dtd. 27/7/2016 and 1/8/2016. In the month of August, 2019, Sandeep Singh Sekhon, Paramvir Singh, Sandeep Singh son of Karamjit Singh approached the petitioner and showed their intention of taking the above mentioned hotel/restaurant on rent and the petitioner agreed for the same and premises was given on rent on 1/8/2019 at the rate of Rs.1.50 Lakhs per month. The above-said persons forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of usurping the hotel/restaurant of the petitioner. When forgery was brought to the notice of the petitioner, then the petitioner moved a complaint on 23/3/2022 and on the basis of preliminary inquiry, FIR No.86, dtd. 3/6/2022 was registered against the said persons. Respondent No.2 is the man of the accused in the above-said FIR No.86. Petitioner is the owner of agricultural land in village Galib Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. But FIR in question was registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. Galib Kalan is not within the jurisdiction of Sarabha Nagar, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. No agreement to sell was ever entered into with other persons. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner had agreed to sell the agricultural land to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 gave the token money of Rs.1.00 Lakh to the petitioner. No agreement to sell was entered into between the parties and no such amount of token money was received by the petitioner. The dispute, if any, is of civil nature. The criminal law could not be said into the motion, if, dispute is only civil in nature. At the most, it is a simple case of breach of civil contract. Multiple complaints from different persons are being filed against the petitioner at the instance of the accused of FIR No.86, dtd. 3/6/2022, got registered by the petitioner.