JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C ) has been filed for quashing FIR No. 109 dated 1.11.2011 for offence under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC ), registered at Police Station, Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1) and proceedings emanating therefrom. Shingara Singh son of Atma Singh (respondent) lodged the first information report on the allegations that on 17.8.2011, Jeet Singh son of Gulzar Singh executed an agreement to sell land measuring 04 biswas situated in village Kotla Badla, Tehsil and Police Station, Khamano for a sum of Rs. 68000/- per biswa. At the time of agreement, Jeet Singh received a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards earnest money and date for registration of sale deed was fixed as 23.8.2011 but the accused did not turn up to execute the sale deed in his favour. Later, he came to know that Jeet Singh, in connivance with his brother Darshan Singh, executed sale deed of land measuring 04 biswas on 26.8.2011. When the complainant enquired from Jeet Singh, he refused to execute the sale deed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner denies that he entered into an agreement to sell in favour of the private respondent and there was a money transaction of Rs. 10,000/- between the petitioner and the complainant which was scribed on a simple paper but even if the petitioner has entered into an agreement to sell and failed to discharge his obligation under the agreement, the same, at best, gives rise to civil dispute but the present FIR has been lodged to be used as a pressure tactic to compel the petitioner to accept demand of the respondent. It is further argued that the respondent has filed a suit for recovery of the earnest money and the petitioner shall be bound by the decision of the civil court, in accordance with law. It is further submitted that in order to constitute offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC, there must be deceitful intention at the inception of the transaction. It is argued with vehemence that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he made any deceitful representation to the respondent to induce him to part with an amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards earnest money.

(3.) Counsel for respondent No. 2, on the contrary, has submitted that the petitioner failed to get the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant on the stipulated date i.e. 23.8.2011 and three days later, he alienated the land in question in favour of third person with an intent to commit fraud with the complainant. It is further argued that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.