Dismissed

Subhash Garg & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2011CRM-M/28060/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hinted at a civil dispute regarding alleged fraud in executing a sale deed for a plot. Dismissed petition for quashing FIR. Found prima facie deception owing to receipt of money without sale deed registration despite lack of ownership. Held indulgence not permissible; evidence cannot be taken by affidavits in such peculiar facts.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR No.24 dated 6.1.2011 dismissed.

Subhash Garg & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRM No.M-28060 of 2011(O & M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *****

¶4

CRM No.M-28060 of 2011(O & M) Date of decision : 14.9.2011

¶5

Subhash Garg @ Subhash Chander and another

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana and another ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

Present:- Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶11

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) :

¶12

This petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prays for quashing of FIR No.24 dated 6.1.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, placed on record as Annexure P-5.

¶13

The FIR has been lodged by complainant-Rakesh Kumar with the plea that he was given to understand by petitioner Subhash Garg @ Subhash Chander that a plot could be purchased @ ` 3200/-per square yard from him. Money was paid in lieu of the plot/property in installments.

¶14

When the complainant approached Subhash Garg @ Subhash Chander, the accused responded by saying that when permission to register sale deeds is granted, the sale deed would be executed in respect of the plot regarding which payment had been made by the complainant.

¶15

On 29.9.2010 when the complainant went to the plot at issue, Subhash Sharma and Subhash Garg also came there. At that stage, it was disclosed to the complainant that Subhash Garg was not the owner of the plot and a fraud had been committed on the complainant by way of taking ` 8,19,200/-.

¶16

Complainant asked for return of the money, however, the accused

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRM No.M-28060 of 2011(O & M)

¶19

refused to return the money and threatened to kill the complainant.

¶20

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner-accused that it is a civil dispute because an agreement to sell was executed. In such circumstances, Courts on the criminal side have no jurisdiction.

¶21

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.

¶22

It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the plot had been sold six times. The petitioners had the right to sell the plot, under the agreement vide which the accused had purchased the plot.

¶23

The facts made available to this Court, at this stage, make it evident that the accused were not the registered owners of the property. An impression, however, was given to the contrary to the complainant. The accused received the money in lieu of the plot/property, however, admittedly, could not get the sale deed registered. Prima facie, deception is made evident from the conduct of the accused. Having taken the money, it was the duty of the petitioners to have the sale deed executed. The same having not been done, surely, culpability of the petitioners, prima facie, is made out.

¶24

In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter affidavits so as to record a finding that no offence has been committed, even if allegations made in the FIR are accepted to be true. In such circumstances, indulgence cannot be shown under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶25

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

Nothing said herein above shall be construed as an opinion of this Court on merits of the case.

¶27

(AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE

¶28

14.9.2011 akm

Subhash Garg & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Garg & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

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

Shabhir Khan Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kultar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sant Sarup Singh and Ors. Vs State U.T.Chandigarh

M/S Koutons Retial India Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/S Gulmarg Beauty