Surjit Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of F.I.R. No. 154 dated 20.6.2006 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B and 506 of the I.P.C. at Police Station, Balachaur, District Nawanshahr. It has further been prayed that all consequent proceedings arising from the said F.I.R. be also quashed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the F.I.R. to contend that there are no allegations against the petitioners and it has only been stated that they were instrumental in getting the sale deed effected as middlemen (real estate agents) and their signatures appear thereon merely as witnesses. He further contended that the vendees, who were main beneficiaries of the sale deed, have already approached this Court by way of Crl.Misc.Petition No. 65395-M of 2007 which stands concluded in their favour by way of judgment dated 30.1.2008, which is on record as Annexure-P6. He submitted that the case of the petitioners, which is on better footings, deserves to be accepted. He further submitted that since there are no allegations against the petitioners and merely because they had appended their signatures as witnesses on the sale deed, no criminality is attracted against them. He referred to the following observations made by this Court in judgment Annexure P6:

This is a classic case of misuse of process of the court, where the civil dispute between the parties has been given a colour of criminality and the petitioners have been made to face the trial since 2006.

It is, thus, his contention that the proceedings against the petitioners be also quashed.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State contended that the petitioners were real estate agents and had played a fraud upon the complainant and, therefore, the proceedings against them should not be quashed.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 65395-M of 2007 which pertains to the vendees, who were intended beneficiaries of the agreement to sell which, however, did not fructify. The allegations in the F.I.R., when translated in English, read as follows:

To

The S.S.P.,Nawanshahar.

Sub: Application regarding cheating by Baldev Singh s/o Sh.Badan Singh s/o Sh.Basant Singh etc., residents of Ghanaula, now resident of Ghanaula, near Cooperative Bank, Ropar.

Sir,

It is requested that I, Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh.Amar Singh, am resident of Fatehullapur, Police Station, Kharar. That along with my partners 2) Santokh Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh 3) Harvinder Singh s/o Sh.Gurbakhsh Singh, resident of Fatehullapur, Police Station, Kharar, District Mohali, entered into an agreement regarding 35 acres of land on 10.1.2006 with Baldev Singh s/o Badan Singh s/o Basant Singh and Gurdev Singh, Vasakha Singh, darshan Singh, Ujagar Singh, Gurmail Singh (brothers of Sh.Baldev Singh) of land situated in village Hedon Mand, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr. The land which they had shown to us popular trees were standing in the said land in 12 acres. Believing them, we entered into the deal and now it has come to know that they have cheated us because the area which they had shown is Panchayat deh and a case is pending of this land. On the basis of the agreement, they have received an earnest money of Rs. 60 lacs (copy of agreement is enclosed) which they have received from us by conniving with each other and by telling lie and cheated us. The area which they had shown they are not the owners of the same. So case be registered against them regarding cheating and suitable action be taken.

It has also been noticed in the aforesaid judgment that a civil suit has already been filed for recovery of the earnest money by the complainants. Even otherwise, the role attributed to the petitioners does not make out any offence against them.

The power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been intended to stall the abuse of process of law and a reading of the F.I.R. does not show that the petitioners are, in any way, involved in the commission of any offence.

This Court, in the above said judgment, also observed as under:

It is true that the Court while exercising powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to take the allegations made in the FIR to be correct and no evidence of defence can be taken into consideration. However, it has to be seen that there is a distinction between mere breach of the contract and the offence of cheating is fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct, but this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. A mere breach cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is gist of the offence. The mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed.

In the present case, there is no breach on the part of the petitioners. Rather, it is the respondents who chose not to complete their part of the contract though the petitioners had always been willing.

The facts detailed above leave no manner of doubt that the present is a civil dispute and ingredients of criminal case are lacking and, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of the process of the Court.

Having regard to the aforesaid, the present petition also deserves to be accepted as the F.I.R. does not reveal any commission of offence by the petitioners even if the allegations contained therein are taken to be correct and, therefore, the continuation of the proceedings against them would merely be perpetuating the abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is accepted, the F.I.R. in question and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the order framing the charge against the petitioners are quashed.