KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition in hand has been filed under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) (erstwhile Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), with the following substantive prayer:

(2.) The relevant factual backdrop of the lis in hand is adumbrated thus:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while espousing the cause pleaded in the petition in hand, has argued that bare perusal of the impugned FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the impugned FIR. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was ready and willing to purchase the land in question. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner being bona fide vendee under the Agreement to Sell dtd. 22/11/2024 has paid a substantial earnest money to the tune of Rs.28,00,000.00 to respondent No.5, but since respondent No.5 failed to execute the sale deed and refused to perform part of his contract, the petitioner was constrained to file civil suit for specific performance, which is pending adjudication before the Civil Court concerned. Learned counsel has asserted that due to this reason, respondent No.5 hatched a conspiracy with the local police and got lodged a frivolous complaint against the petitioner on 30/10/2025, just to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. Learned counsel has further asserted that on the asking of the petitioner, Superintendent of Police (D) Crime, Fatehgarh Sahib had deemed fit not to register an FIR against the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that thereafter, respondent No.5, in connivance with respondent No.4 - complainant (NRI son of respondent No.5), who has no locus standi, made a fresh complaint before the ADGP, NRI Affairs, Punjab and got lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner, which is sheer misuse of process of law and privileges given to an NRI. Learned counsel has contended that the question, whether the Agreement to Sell is genuine, is presently sub judice before a competent Civil Court. It is further argued that the impugned FIR, founded on the same allegations, is merely an attempt to impart a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute.