SHAKTI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.27 dated 26.01.2011 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar and chargesheet dated 19.07.2013 with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Facts of the case are that Satish Kumar-respondent No.2 lodged the FIR with allegations that Vishavnath was owner of 44 kanals 14 marlas of land and he entered into an agreement to sell with Satish-first informant @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre vide agreement to sell dated 07.03.2008 and received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as earnest money. As per agreement to sell, target date for execution and registration of sale-deed was fixed as 05.02.2009. On 07.03.2008, Mange Ram-petitioner No.4 had given a guarantee that in case the sale-deed is not executed, he shall remain liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- i.e. double the amount of earnest money.

(3.) It is further averred that on the target date i.e. 05.02.2009/06.02.2009 the first informant visited the office of the SubRegistrar along with the balance sale consideration but the accused did not come. The first informant got his presence marked and thereafter first informant had been calling upon the accused to come and execute the sale deed but they had been putting off the matter. Now the first informant has come to know that accused No.1 had in fact entered into an agreement to sell with Seo Ram etc. on 2.9.1982 and civil court decree was passed in favour of Seo Ram on 10.12.1984. Appeal against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 30.09.1995, which was also upheld in the High Court vide judgment dated 08.10.2009. Thus, it was averred that fraud has been played with him, the accused are also refusing to return the amount and they are threatening to kill him.