SUBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Subhash Chand seeking quashing of FIR No.159 dtd. 29/5/2013 under Sec. 420 IPC Police Station Uchana District Jind (Annexure P-12) and final report (Annexure P-13), submitted by the police under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. and subsequent proceedings arising thereof.

(2.) FIR (Annexure P-12) was registered against the petitioner on the basis of written complaint lodged by respondent No.2-Kashmir Singh wherein it was alleged that the petitioner sold his land measuring 38 kanals 7 marlas situated in village Kalta Tehsil Narwana District Jind to complainant/respondent No.2 vide agreement to sell dtd. 20/12/1985 (Annexure P-3) and even the possession of the land so sold was also handed over to respondent No.2 and since then respondent No.2 is in cultivating possession of the same and at the time of execution of said agreement to sell the entire sale consideration was also paid to the petitioner. However in the revenue record ownership of the land in question was not changed from the name of the petitioner to that of respondent No.2 and taking advantage of the same, petitioner sold 23 kanals out of the aforesaid land to Kuldeep and Rishi Pal sons of Subhash vide registered sale deed dtd. 21/5/2013 and in this manner petitioner cheated respondent No.2, who is the owner-in-possession of the land in question since the date of execution of aforesaid agreement to sell dtd. 20/12/1985.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.2 has propounded an agreement to sell (Annexure P-3), in order to establish that he is the owner and in possession of the land measuring 38 kanals 7 marlas. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that actually no such agreement to sell was ever executed by the petitioner regarding his land with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 had not paid any amount to the petitioner by way of sale consideration. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Annexure P-3 even if taken to be true on its face value, is a mere agreement to sell and does not confer any title. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was working in the Indian Railway and he gave his land on 'Batai' to respondent No.2 and his brothers Kuldeep Singh and Joga Singh in 1987 and since then respondent No.2 and his brothers are occupying the said land in the same capacity. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to vacate the land on number of occasions. But instead of handing over the possession of land, respondent No2 and his brother filed civil suit No.2178 of 2011 (Annexure P-1) seeking grant of decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering into their possession in the land in question and further restraining the petitioner from alienating the said land. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that said suit was dismissed as being withdrawn by the plaintiffs therein on 23/1/2012 vide order Annexure P-2. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in order to retain his possession over the land in question, respondent No.2 forged an agreement to sell dtd. 20/12/1985 (Annexure P-3). That on the basis of the said forged document, the respondent No.2 and his brother filed suit for specific performance on the basis of said fake document and the copy of the plaint of the said civil suit is Annexure P-5. That said civil suit was filed after the withdrawal of the earlier civil suit (Annexure P-1). That the petitioner contested said civil suit and filed written statement specifically denying the execution of agreement to sell (Annexure P-3). The counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said civil suit for specific performance of alleged agreement, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein gave undertaking not to alienate the land in question without prior information to the Court and accordingly the application moved by the opposite party under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was disposed of vide order dtd. 9/4/2012 (Annexure P-8). The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner intended to sell 23 kanals out of the total land measuring 38 kanals 7 marlas to Kuldeep Singh and Rishi Pal sons of Subhash and in this regard application (Annexure P-9) was filed on 13/5/2013 to inform the Court about the proposed vandees. That the said information was endorsed by the Court concerned vide order dtd. 13/5/2013 (Annexure P-10). The counsel for the petitioner further submits that after providing the aforesaid information to the Court, the petitioner sold 23 kanals out of the land in dispute to Kuldeep and Rishi Pal for valuable consideration of '31,62,500/- vide registered sale deed dtd. 14/5/2013 (Annexure P-11). Immediately thereafter, respondent No.2 and his brother filed another suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner to restrain him from executing any sale deed with regard to land in question measuring 38 kanals 7 marlas. But in the said civil suit no injunction order was passed against the petitioner. Thereafter as respondent No.2 failed to get any interim relief on civil side, he got registered impugned FIR (Annexure P-12) against the petitioner.