AJIT VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been preferred seeking quashing of FIR No.83 dated 31.03.2012 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered in Police Station Sadar Gurgaon and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute in favour of Rohini Chopra vide agreement dated 13.04.2011. The last date for registration of the sale deed was 30.05.2011. Rohini Chopra failed to get the sale deed registered on or before the stipulated date, therefore, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the flat in favour of the complainant on 05.08.2011 and the date for getting the sale deed registered was 10.11.2011. It is argued that the complainant (respondent) did not come forward to get the sale deed registered on 10.11.2011 despite the petitioner remained waiting for him in the office of the builder for the whole day. The respondent served a legal notice dated 14.11.2011 which was duly replied by the petitioner on 18.11.2011. It is argued with vehemence that the allegations raised by the complainant (respondent), at best, gives rise to civil dispute and the complainant has already approached the civil Court by filing a suit for specific performance of the agreement and the petitioner would be bound by the decision rendered in the civil proceedings. It is argued that the instant FIR has been lodged on 31.03.2012 to be used as a pressure tactic to compel the petitioner to succumb to the terms and conditions to be fixed by the respondent. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh, 2006 2 SCC(Cri) 430and judgments of this Court in Piara Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2011 2 RCR(Cri) 416, Arun Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2006 3 RCR(Cri) 793.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondent No.2, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner, admittedly, entered into an agreement to sell the property in question in favour of Rohini Chopra vide agreement dated 13.04.2011. Without disclosing the factum of said agreement in favour of Rohini Chopra, with a deceitful intention he entered into agreement to sell the same property in favour of the respondent on 05.08.2011 and received an amount of Rs.35 lacs out of total sale consideration of Rs.42,98,400/ -. It is argued that the petitioner, at the time of agreement, assured the complainant that the property is free from all encumbrances, sale, dispute, litigation and attachment etc. but the said assurance has been proved to be misleading with a malafide intention to extract a huge amount of Rs.35 lacs from the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and for that reason he and his wife have filed a suit pending in the Court at Gurgaon seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 05.08.2011. It is strenuously argued that had the petitioner disclosed the factum of said agreement in favour of Rohini Chopra, the respondent would not have parted with an amount of Rs.35 lacs for a property, not free from encumbrances. Counsel has submitted that the respondent in his reply dated 02.08.2012 submitted to Additional Commissioner of Police, Economic Offence Wing Crime Branch, Palm Vihar Gurgaon has given a detailed reference to the communications received from Rohini Chopra through her counsel requesting not to transfer / nominate the property in dispute in favour of any other person unless no objection was accorded by her. The last submission made by counsel is that the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner have got no bearing on the facts of the case in hand. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.