Vikas Jain and Chander Mohan Kohli vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, for a limited purpose of deciding the core

controversy raised in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that accused Vikas Jain (Petitioner No. 1) had entered into an

agreement dated 14.2.2008 to purchase the plot in question of the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 26 lacs. He paid a sum of Rs. 6

lacs as earnest money. The balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before

30.3.2008, but the accused did not perform his part of contract. The complainant gave telegram. Instead of performing his part of contract, the

accused was stated to have filed a false and frivolous suit in the civil Court at Ludhiana.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that the accused hatched a criminal

conspiracy and committed fraud with the complainant in order to grab his property. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of

application/complaint of complainant Tejinder Pal Singh (Respondent No. 2), the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.

113 dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-7), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC by the

police of Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, in the manner detailed here-in-above. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted

the final police report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure/challan against the accused.

The Petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal proceedings against them and filed the present petition for quashing of

FIR (Annexure P-7) and all subsequent proceedings thereto, by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure That is how, I

am seized of the matter.

The case set up by the Petitioners, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that the complainant, who is an influential person, gave an application to

SSP Ludhiana on 16.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) and during the pendency of the civil suit (Annexure P-2) between the parties, the present case was

registered against the Petitioners with an ulterior motive. The written statement (Annexure P3) was filed. The complainant was stated to have

lodged false criminal case against the Petitioners. That being so, the Petitioners claimed the quashing of the FIR (Annexure P-7) and all subsequent

proceedings thereto in this context. The learned Counsel for complainant (Respondent No. 2) has stated that the matter has already been

compromised between the parties and the complainant has no objection if the criminal prosecution initiated against the Petitioners is quashed in this

context.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the

entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.

As is evident from the record that Petitioner No. 1 was stated to have entered into an agreement dated 14.2.2008 with the complainant in

respect of purchase of plot in dispute for a total consideration of Rs. 26 lacs, but the accused did not perform his part of contract in this regard.

The parties have compromised the matter. In pursuance and on the basis of compromise arrived at between them, the civil Court passed the order

on 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-8) in the following manner:

Parties have stated that they have compromised the matter and accordingly the Defendant No. 1 and Ld. Counsel for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2

and Plaintiff got recorded their statements. Defendant No. 1 and Ld. Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 suffered a statement that they are ready

to get the sale deed executed and registered as per the terms and conditions contained in the agreement to sell dated 14.2.2008 after receiving

balance sale consideration of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Plaintiff can get the sale deed executed and registered the day he wants in the next week. The

Plaintiff also suffered statement that he has heard the statement of Defendant No. 1 and Ld. Counsel for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and will get the

sale deed executed and registered in the next week as per terms and conditions contained in the aforesaid agreement to sell after paying balance

sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff brought to the notice of this Court and ad-interim stay restraining the Defendants

from alienating the suit property has been granted by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dt. 14.6.08 and the same is still in operation and an

entry of said stay order has been incorporated in the revenue record and the sale deed of the suit property can not be get registered without the

vacation of aforesaid ad interim stay order and requested that same be vacated so that the Plaintiff may not face any hardship while getting the sale

deed registered. In view of this ad interim stay order dt. 14.6.08 passed with regard to property in dispute stands vacated with the direction to the

revenue officials to delete the entry in the revenue record if any other stay order has not been passed by any competent court or by this Court

except the case in hand. Sub Registry is directed to get the sale deed of the suit property registered though entry regarding stay has been made in

the revenue record, if no other stay order has been passed by this Court or any other competent court in this regard regarding suit property. Copy

of this order be given dasti under rules.

It is not a matter of dispute that in pursuance of compromise, the sale deed was executed on 10.12.2008. The said civil suit has already been

decided on 18.3.2009. The factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged by the learned Counsel for complainant (Respondent No. 2).

Meaning thereby, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes. Once the civil Court has already decided the matter between the parties on

the basis of compromise and the sale deed has also been executed, then the initiation and continuation of criminal prosecution by the complainant

against the Petitioners is nothing, but a sheer and complete misuse of process of criminal law and deserves to be quashed in view of the law laid

down by Hon''ble Apex Court in cases Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. 2008(4) RCR 827; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR 888

(SC) and Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007 (3) RCR 1052. The law laid down in the

aforesaid judgments ""mutatis mutandis"" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted and the FIR (Annexure P-7) and all subsequent criminal proceedings thereto

are hereby quashed. Consequently, the Petitioners-accused are discharged from the criminal prosecution in the obtaining circumstances of the

case.