JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been preferred for quashing FIR No. 149 dated 4.9.2011 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 506, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), registered at Police Station, Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that petitioners No. 1 to 4 entered into agreement to sell land measuring 129 Kanals at the rate of Rs. 6.60 Lakhs per acre on 8.10.2008. The amount of Rs.10.50 Lakhs towards earnest money was paid on 13.10.2008 and the date for execution of sale deed was fixed for 28.4.2009, extended from 28.4.2009 to 13.5.2009 vide writing dated 27.4.2009. On 11.5.2009, sale deed was executed after purchasing stamp papers of Rs. 1.30 Lakhs. Copies of sale deeds were presented before the Sub Registrar, Fazilka for registration but the said authority disclosed that there was a stay order concerning land measuring 16 acres passed by the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 27.4.2009. As per agreement between the parties, the date for registration of the sale deed was extended from 11.5.2009 to 11.6.2009 vide writing executed on the back of original agreement and further amount of Rs. 11.15 Lakhs was paid to the vendors. It is argued that after vacation of stay by the District Judge on 13.8.2010 while disposing of appeal titled "Virsa Singh vs. Jaswinder Singh and others" notice was served upon him (respondent) about vacation of stay and calling upon him to get the sale deed registered on 19.8.2010. The complainant failed to come present on the stipulated date for getting the sale deed registered despite Jaswinder Singh and others being present in the office of the Sub Registrar, Fazilka to discharge their obligation under the agreement. It is argued with vehemence that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioners. It is argued that the petitioners have filed a civil suit that the agreement to sell between the parties stands rescinded and on the other hand, the complainant has filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement and the parties shall be bound by the decision of the civil court.

(3.) ANOTHER submission made by counsel is that the land in question was purchased by Jaswinder Singh and others from its previous owner Mahinder Singh. Virsa Singh filed a civil suit against Mahinder Singh and others setting out an agreement to sell in his favour prior to the execution of sale deed by said Mahinder Singh in favour of Jaswinder Singh and others. The application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed by the learned trial court and Virsa Singh preferred an appeal against the order passed by the trial court and the appellate court i.e. District Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure P -3) passed an order of stay restraining the respondents therein from alienating or transferring the land in dispute, in any manner. The stay granted by the District Judge during pendency of appeal stood vacated as the appeal preferred by Virsa Singh was dismissed on 13.8.2010. According to counsel, as the complainant (respondent) did not come forward to get the sale deed registered on 19.8.2010 in response to notice dated 13.8.2010 got issued by the petitioners through their counsel Sanjiv Makkar, Advocate, the petitioners by no stretch of imagination can be said to have committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is further submitted that the criminal proceedings have been lodged by the respondent to be used as a pressure tactic to compel the petitioners to accede to the terms and conditions of the complainant in transferring their land in his favour when the matter is otherwise sub judice before the civil court. The last submission made by counsel is that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners ever had any dishonest intention much less at the inception of the transaction to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC and therefore, the criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law, thus, liable to be quashed.