NAFE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAFE Singh filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of first information report No. 8 dated 28.1.1992 registered at police station, Indri, District Karnal, under Sections 420 and 109, IPC. The case was registered on the basis of an application submitted by Kishna respondent No. 2 to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, wherein he alleged that on 6.9.1991 the petitioner took him to his house and served liquor. When he was fully drunk he was taken to Indri on the pretext that some document was to be attested by him as a witness and he further told him that he was not to disclose this fact to any one. This created a doubt in his mind and he narrated the incident to his relations who made enquiries from Tehsil office Indri and obtained copy of any entry made in the register of Mai Chand, deed writer at serial No. 1380 dated 17.9.1991. From that entry he learnt that he was made to thumb mark an agreement to sell 91 kanals 11 marlas of land for Rs. 7,44,000/- out of which he had received Rs. 2,46,600/- as earnest money. In fact he had never thumb marked any such agreement nor received the amount of consideration and taking advantage of his drunken condition and illiteracy the petitioner obtained his thumb mark representing that he was only a witness to the deed. He did not want to sell his land and legal action may be taken against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 had agreed to sell 2/3rd share of 137 kanals 6 marlas of land situated in Dabkoli Kalan for Rs. 7,44,000/- and he had actually received earnest money amounting to Rs. 2,46,600/-. The deed-writer read out the agreement to Kishna and he thumb marked it after accepting the contents of the agreement as correct. He had agreed to deliver the possession of the land after getting it partitioned and in pursuance of that agreement he moved an application for partition of the land on 13.9.1991. Thereafter he became dishonest and started negotiating for the alienation of the land with other persons as a result of which he had to file a suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain him from transferring the land in favour of other person. The dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature and the validity of the agreement to sell dated 6.9.1991 was the subject matter of civil suits pending between the parties. The judgment of the Civil Court will be binding on the criminal court and continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.