SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. H. R. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ram Raj Pandey for the respondent No.3, learned A.G.A. for the other respondents and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 434 of 2008 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., P.S. Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad arising out of case crime no. 411 of 2008 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghaziabad. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the averments made in the F.I.R. only a case of civil nature is made out. In fact the respondent No.3 and petitioner entered into an agreement for sale and thereby the petitioner agreed to sell certain land in favour of the respondent No.3 and received a sum of Rs. 3 Crore as an earnest money. It is next submitted that a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement is already pending. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha V. Narayan Singh and Another in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 694. In that case the Apex Court has held that the dispute arising out of an agreement for sale is a civil dispute.
(3.) MR . Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, on the other hand, submitted that as per allegations made in the F.I.R., the intention of the petitioner was dishonest even on the date of transaction. He had shown forged papers to the respondent No.3 and had concealed the stay order already obtained by M/s. S.V.B. Builders against him. Therefore, the intention of the applicant was dishonest at the very inception of the transaction. If the intention of the aplicant was not dishonest at the very inception of the contract, there was no reason for the applicant to conceal the aforesaid facts. It was also mentioned that it is not a case of simplicitor specific performance of agreement for sale.;