TEJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the code") is for quashing FIR No. 8 dated January 18, 2007 under Sections 420 and 120b ipc registered at Police Station, Haibowal district Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR lodged against the petitioners is nothing else but abuse of process of law as no offence whatsoever under sections 420/120b IPC is made out even on plain reading of the contents of the FIR. The submission is that the wife of complainant entered into an agreement to sell her House No. 61 measuring 200 Sq. yards out of Khasra No. 10/20/22,20/23 Khewat khatuni No. 1341/1426 as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 situated at village haibowal Kalan District Ludhiana on january 18, 2006 for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000 out of which an earnest money of Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid in cash and balance of rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. On failure to register the sale deed, a suit for specific performance was filed on July 12, 2006 by satwant Singh (vendee), which is pending in the Civil Court. In the suit, written statement was filed by the wife of respondent No. 2 on September 22, 2006 and on December 1, 2006 status quo order was passed in favour of Satwant Singh by the civil Court. The present FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 only on January 18, 2007 with a view to pressurise the petitioners not to proceed with the civil suit. He further submits that the stand taken by the wife of the complainant in the written statement filed to the suit is quite different as to the allegations made in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme court in Ram Biruji Devi and another v. Umesh Kumar Singh and another.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that agreement to sell projected by the petitioners is nothing else but a fabricated document. The stamp papers in question were purchased on December 12, 2005 whereas agreement to sell was written on January 18, 2006. Signed stamp papers were handed over in blank to Tejinder Singh son-in-law of the vendee with whom the respondent had financial dealings as from time to time he had been raising loans from him. To secure the loan raised as he did not own any property blank signed stamp papers by his wife were handed over as security for the loan on which the present agreement to sell has been fabricated. He further submits that in the statement before the Police, Tejinder singh stated that he is not carrying any business of finance, however, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act titled as Tejinder Singh v. Prem Singh, which is pending before the judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, an affidavit was filed by Tejinder Singh stating him to be sole proprietor of M/s. Toor Finance Service. He further submits that after the alleged agreement to sell was executed on January 18, 2006, said tejinder Singh is even a witness in a rent deed dated March 1, 2006 executed by wife of the respondent No. 2 in favour of Vinod kumar son of Shri R. P. Sharma renting out the property in dispute. This fact it self establishes that prior to that there was no agreement to sell as otherwise tejinder Singh would not have agreed for renting out the property for which the agreement to sell had already been executed. As per alleged agreement to sell dated January 18, 2006, the last date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as july 5, 2006 and the possession of the house was to be delivered at the time of execution of the sale deed.