DARSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 3. An agreement of sale of a residential house was entered into between the petitioner and husband of respondent No. 3 on 5.7.1993. The petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract of sale on 29.6.1994. The husband of respondent No. 3 put in appearance in the Court and filed written statement on 4.10.1994 and the replication to the written statement was filed by the petitioner on 17.1.1995. The Civil Court vide order dated 13.2.1995 protected the possession of the petitioner by means of an interim order. The FIR which is sought to be quashed in this petition filed by the plaintiffs of the civil suit was registered as FIR No. 109 dated 11.3.1995 against petitioners Darshan Lal, his wife Smt. Sushma Rani and one Sardari Lal, brother of Darshan Lal at Police Station Yamuna Nagar. The contention of the petitioners is that the averments made in the FIR are virtually the same as is the plea raised by the husband of respondent No. 3, namely, Subhash Chander in the Civil Suit. The petition for quashing has been moved on the ground, inter alia, that there is an attempt to convert a purely civil litigation into a criminal litigation and since these very issues are pending decision before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the findings thereof will be quite relevant before the criminal court dealing with the criminal case and there would, thus, be a duplicate attempt to go into those very allegations in the criminal side notwithstanding the fact that the civil court had to record a finding on those issues.

(2.) Upon notice of motion being issued, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a reply through Sh. Deep Ram, Inspector-SHO P.S. City Yamuna Nagar and respondent No. 3 has filed d separate reply. Respondent No. 3 has, inter alia, alleged that the FIR that has been registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar, is being investigated by the police and at this stage the petition for quashing cannot and ought not be entertained and the same would not be maintainable as being pre mature.

(3.) On merits, reply has been made para-wise to the averments made in the petition and in nut shell the stand of respondent No. 3 is that no case for quashing of the FIR aforesaid is made out.