- (1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No. 148 dated 16.09.2009, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station,City, Roopnagar, District Roopnagar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner. Brief facts of the case as emerge from the FIR (Annexure P-1) can be summarized as under:- Respondent No.2 Santokh Singh informed the police that on 24.04.2009, a sale deed in respect of a plot measuring 2 kanals was executed in favour of Roop Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of Gobind Colony Ropar, Sukhwinder Kumar Sharma son of Ram Sarup Sharma, resident of Guru Teg Bhadur Nagar, Ropar and Ram Lal son of Puran Chand Malhotra. The payment was made by way of cheque Nos. 009697 worth Rs. 7,00,000/- issued by Roop Singh and 005701 of Rs. 8,00,000/- issued by Lal Singh (petitioner) drawn on Axis Bank, Ropar. The reference with regard to the said two cheques was mentioned in the sale deed. It was also scribed that if those cheques were not honoured then the sale deed would be treated as cancelled. Roop Singh and Lal Singh requested the complainant to grant them for some time to arrange the money since they were expecting certain payments, however, they did not turn up and sold the plots. On 31.05.2009, respondent No.2/complainant met the petitioner and his co-accused and they promised that Roop Singh and Lal Singh will make the payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- on 05.06.2009 and Rs. 8,00,000/- on 15.06.2009 and the assurance given by them was reduced into writing by Roop Singh and Lal Singh. On 05.06.2009, the complainant demanded the amount from Roop Singh and Lal Singh but they did not pay the amount. The complainant went to the bank and came to know that the petitioner and Roop Singh had instructed the bank to stop the payment.
(2.) On the basis of the above, FIR under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC was registered.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute was of civil nature and a civil suit was also filed. He further submitted that respondent No.2-complainant had also filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as such the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom were abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed.;