- (1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the impugned FIR No. 528 dated 02.11.2004, under Section 420, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at P S Ratia, District Fatehabad (P3) by respondent No. 2 and all the subsequent proceedings including the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C dated 28.08.2005 as well as the impugned charge order/charge dated 30.01.2008 (P5) arising therefrom.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for quashing of the FIR submitted that respondent No. 2 has already filed a civil suit on 27.09.2004, alleging therein that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell qua his land on 31.05.2002 and as per the agreement to sell, in case, the petitioner fails to execute the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2 on the fixed dated i.e. 30.05.2003, the petitioner shall be liable to pay twice the amount of the earnest money and respondent No. 2 shall also be entitled at his option to get the sale deed executed through the process of the court and, in case, respondent No. 2 fails to perform his part of the contract, the earnest money shall be forfeited by the respondent. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid agreement to sell, respondent No. 2 also filed a civil suit for specific performance in the court of civil judge at Fatehabad, wherein, he also prayed for declaration that the sale deed No. 2396 dated 14.09.2004 registered in favour of Jasbir Kaur be set aside. It was accordingly stated that the dispute is civil dispute, for which, civil suit has already been filed. As such, criminal offence is not made out.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondent/complainant vehemently opposed the same and stated that the petitioner instead of executing sale deed in favour of the respondent/complainant, executed the same in favour one Jasbir Kaur wife of Bhagwant Singh. As such, the petitioner has committed a fraud. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that the charges have since been framed against the accused/petitioner and therefore, FIR should not be quashed. Heard. No written statement has been filed. As such, it is an admitted position that complainant/respondent No. 2 in the civil suit before the civil Court has alleged that in case, sale deed is not executed, the complainant/plaintiff was entitled to get back the double of the amount of the earnest money and that the complainant/plaintiff shall also be entitled at his option to get the same executed through the process of the civil Court and also that in case, the complainant/plaintiff refuses to perform his part, the earnest money paid to the petitioner shall be forfeited. Moreover, in the civil suit no allegations of cheating or criminal breach of trust has been levelled. On the other hand, the allegations in the FIR are also the same i.e. the petitioner executed an agreement to sell the land mentioned in the FIR, to the complainant/respondent No. 2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- on 31.05.2002 for which Rs. 80,000/- was allegedly paid to the petitioner by complainant/respondent No. 2. The date for execution of the registered sale deed was fixed as 31.05.2003 and it was further alleged that on the promised date, the petitioner did not reach the office of the Sub Registrar and complainant/respondent No. 2 got his presence marked before the Sub Registrar.;