Allowed

Charnajit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jul 2012CRM-M/14646/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash an FIR under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC regarding a land agreement dispute. The Court held that the matter was a breach of contract without proof of initial dishonesty, making criminal proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.38 dated 10.3.2011 under Sections 420/120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Charnajit Singh & Anr. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-14646 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-14646 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.7.2012

¶5

Charanjit Singh and another

¶6

......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.D.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.Amit Rawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Manvinder Dalal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 10.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶17

The relevant contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as

¶18

under:-

¶19

“Sir, it is requested to you that I Baldev Singh, son of

¶20

¶21

Criminal Misc. No.M-14646 of 2011 (O&M)

¶22

Kartar Singh resident of Village Chak Kalan Tehsil and Distt. and requested you as in the above mentioned that I bargain my land bearing area 153 kanal 06 marla by pledge in the agreement on dated 04.09.2008 to Amanpreet son of Charanjit Singh son of Malkit Singh, Malkit Singh son of Mohan Singh son of Natha Singh itself Makit Kaur wife of Charanjit Singh son of Malkit Singh itself and main from General Jaskaran Singh son of Gian Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of Giddarwindi Tehsil: Jagraon, Jaskaran Singh resident of village Mana Singh Wala Distt. Ferozpur. As per the agreement dated 04-09-2008 registry should be registered before dated 13.5.2009. That as per this agreement dated 04.09.2008 I had given 70,00,000/- (Seventy lac) as advance money to the accused persons. That from the total area of the land I have pledged the 10 acre of land. That 09 acre of land is pending for registry. That Jaskaran Singh has gone Canada and ownership of the land belongs to Malkit Kaur. I had told so many times to Malkit Kaur for the registry of land but she again and again gave excuses and told that on coming from Canada Jaskaran Singh will pledge the registry. Neither she has registered the land and nor allowed me to take any legal action. Today along with myself Village Sarpanch Sukhdev Singh and Gurram with the Panchayat went to the house of Makit Kaur wife of Charanjit Singh and Charanjit Singh son of Malkit

¶23

¶24

Criminal Misc. No.M-14646 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

Singh in Jagraon then Malkit Kaur and Charanjit Singh gave filthy buses in front of the Panchayat and threatened to kill and shouted which registry, we don’t want to pledge any registry. Do what you want to do. We have a high level approach you can’t do anything against us, then Charanjit Singh and Malkit Kaur along with other unknown persons put the gun on my forehead and told that go silently otherwise we kill. Malkit Kaur had told her husband that today he will not leave free. If the Panchayat and Sarpanch were not with me then they have killed me. I apprehended danger to my life from the above mentioned accused persons. Please take legal action against them and also pledge the registry of my remaining land.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the parties in the present case was purely civil in nature and hence, the FIR in question was liable to be quashed.

¶27

Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the criminal proceedings in the present case were liable to continue as the petitioners had failed to honour the agreement to sell in question with dishonest intention. The petitioners had moved an application for anticipatory bail before the trial Court. In the said proceedings, the petitioners had initially stated that they would execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell after adjusting the amount of ` 70,00,000/- received by petitioner No.2. However, the said statement was not honoured by the

¶28

¶29

Criminal Misc. No.M-14646 of 2011 (O&M)

¶30

petitioners and thereafter, the bail application filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 16.7.2012.

¶31

Learned State counsel has submitted that the investigation in the present case was still going on.

¶32

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve to be allowed.

¶33

In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 , the Apex Court has held as under:-

¶34

“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

¶35

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶36

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do

¶37

¶38

Criminal Misc. No.M-14646 of 2011 (O&M)

¶39

not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶40

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶41

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶42

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶43

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

¶44

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

¶45

¶46

Criminal Misc. No.M-14646 of 2011 (O&M)

¶47

with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶48

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

¶49

It has been held by the Apex Court in Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and another (2006) 1 SCC (Crl.) 746 as

¶50

under:-

¶51

“Reliance has been placed, in that order, on various decisions of this Court holding that from mere failure of a person to keep up promise subsequently, a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promises cannot be presumed. A distinction has to be kept in mind between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement. The subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating

¶52

¶53

Criminal Misc. No.M-14646 of 2011 (O&M)

¶54

unless fraudulent, dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.”

¶55

A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. An agreement to sell was entered between the parties qua 153 kanals and 6 marlas of land on 4.9.2008. However, three sale deeds were executed by the petitioners with regard to 48 kanals of land. Thus, the main grievance of the complainant is that the sale deed has not been executed qua the entire land measuring 153 kanals 6 marlas. In this regard, the remedy available to the complainant is to file a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. A perusal of the FIR also does not lead to the inference that there was any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners from the very beginning at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question. There is a distinction between offence of cheating and mere breach of contract. The present case relates to breach of contract and thus, cannot be said to be a criminal case of offence of cheating. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶56

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.38 dated 10.3.2011 under Section 420/ 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhianaand all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶57

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶58

July 19, 2012 anita

Charnajit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charnajit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Robert Gaaru Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Harjinder Singh and Ors.

Amarjeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Anokh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.