Allowed

Virender Pal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2010CRM-M/23035/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal complaint alleging cheating under Section 420 IPC. Ruling that no dishonest intention was shown and citing order 39 Rule 2-A CPC findings, the court held no offence was made out and quashed subsequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint, summoning order, and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Virender Pal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-23035 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-23035 of 2009 Date of decision : 10.12.2010

Virender Pal Singh

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Haryana and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Shalini Atri, DAG Haryana for respondent No. 1.

¶13

Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶14

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶15

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the criminal complaint under Sections 420/471 IPC dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order passed pursuant thereto dated 11.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) vide which SDJM, Safidon summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section 420 IPC.

¶16

Brief factual background of the case is that complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that Hukam Kaur, mother of the petitioner had agreed to sell her half share of land measuring 90 kanals and 2 marlas i.e. 45 kanals and 1 marla vide agreement to sell dated 21.06.1995 to the petitioner for total consideration of Rs. 3,95,000/- and possession of the same was delivered. Hukam Kaur

¶17

died on 15.10.1995. A civil suit was preferred by the respondent for specific performance on 12.12.2000 but the same was dismissed by

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-23035 of 2009

¶19

¶20

Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Safidon on 30.07.2005. In appeal, however, Amar Singh-complainant succeeded and Regular Second Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before this court which is pending after admission.

¶21

During the pendency of this proceedings, a complaint dated 08.12.2008 was lodged by respondent No. 2 alleging that despite status-quo order passed by Additional District Judge, Jind, the petitioner had pledged the land in question to bank for obtaining the car loan. Pursuant to said complaint, the petitioner was summoned to face trial by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Safidon. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has referred to the order passed in proceedings under order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C for alleged violation of status-quo order dated 11.08.2005. He submits that in the said order, it was clearly observed that pledging of land during the subsistence of status-quo order would not amount to violation of the said order. He further submits that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out as there was no dishonest intention on part of the petitioner to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to anybody. He further submits that by now even the car loan has been cleared and no objection certificate has been issued by Punjab National Bank.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-complainant has opposed the prayer and submits that in view of the allegations contained in the complaint, offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

It is evident that a complaint was lodged on the allegation that during subsistence of status-quo order which was passed by Additional District Judge, Jind on 11.08.2005, the petitioner had pledged the land with

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. M-23035 of 2009

¶26

¶27

bank for obtaining car loan. It appears that simultaneously an application under order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was preferred by respondent No. 2- complainant before Additional District Judge, Jind wherein he alleged that petitioner had committed contempt of court. However, while disposing of the said application, the said court observed as follows:-

¶28

“AW1 Amar Singh admitted in the corss examination that the possession of the land has not been disturbed after passing of order of status quo as he is continuing in possession of the property. He has also admitted that ownership of the suit land has not been changed as in the record ownership is in the name of respondent No. 1 Virender Pal Singh. When neither ownership nor possession has been changed, now it can be said that the suit land has been alienated by respondent No. 1 by mortgaging the same with Punjab National Bank to secure loan for car for which he is making payment of installments regularly and is not a defaulter. Hence it is concluded that respondent No. 1 has not violated order dated 11.08.2005 and subsequent orders dated 14.09.2005, 30.11.2005 and 22.02.2006. So this issue is decided against the applicant. ”

¶29

Admittedly, the said order attain finality as no appeal/revision was preferred against the same. Learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to show as to how offence under Section 420 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced before the court a no objection certificate issued by Punjab National Bank which shows that loan taken by the petitioner against the land in question has also been repaid. The said certificate is taken on record as mark ‘A’.

¶30

Criminal Misc. No. M-23035 of 2009

¶31

¶32

In view of the above, this court has come to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that petitioner caused wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to the complainant, offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out.

¶33

Under the circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the complainant (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 11.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶34

December 10, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE

Virender Pal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Pal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs State of Haryana

Sekh Menudeen Vs State of Union Territory and Ors.

Rajni Kataria and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Dholia Ram and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Samitar Singh @ Ditta Vs State of Punjab