H.K.SANDHU, J. - (1.) AMRIK Singh and his son Narinder Singh were allotted Plot No.4 in Industrial Area, Phase I, Panchkula and they agreed to sell that plot measuring 2100 Square Metres alongwith construction and tenancy rights to Yash Pal Singh Bhatia for a total consideration of Rs. 1 lacs. An agreement to sell was executed on 5.7.1989 and Rs. 1 lac were paid to the vendors by way of earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on 31.8.1989. It was also agreed that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs will be paid to Amrik Singh and Narinder Singh by 25.7.1989. Later on a dispute arose between the parties regarding possession of the property and the matter was referred to Shri R.K. Saini who was appointed an arbitrator. The arbitrator could not finalise the matter about the possession of the plot. On 16.8.1989 respondent Yash Pal Singh Bhatia approached Amrik Singh and Narinder Singh at plot No.4 with the sale consideration but he was asked to wait till 31.8.1989. On that day the respondents reached the Sub -Registrar's office at Kalka with whole of the amount and waited for Amrik Singh and Narinder Singh. They did not appear to execute the sale deed. A notice was served on the vendors and in reply to the notice they alleged that one of the brothers of Narinder Singh was also a partner in the industrial plot. This fact was not disclosed when the agreement to sell was executed. On these allegations Yash Pal Singh Bhatia filed a complaint against Narinder Singh for offences, under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala City. The complaint was sent to Station House Officer, Police Station, Panchkula and on the basis of the same First Information Report No. 80 dated 16.4.1990 was recorded against Narinder Singh alone as Amrik Singh had expired. Narinder Singh filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cod~ of Criminal Procedure for quashing F.I.R. Annexure P -6 and charge -sheet Annexure P -7 as also the proceedings in pursuance to the First Information Report pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala. The petitioner alleged that agreement to sell was executed at Chandigarh and the amount of Rs. 1 lac was also paid at Chandigarh in the presence of the witnesses. The Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala thus had no jurisdiction to try the case as the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner was not committed within jurisdiction of Ambala Court. It was further pleaded that a civil remedy had been provided under the agreement which was already availed by the respondent who had filed a suit for mandatory in junction for execution of the agreement and resort could not be had to criminal proceedings.
(2.) THIS petition was admitted for hearing only on the point of jurisdiction. In the return filed by the respondent it was contended that no doubt the agreement to sell was executed at Chandigarh but the bank draft for Rs. 90,000/ - by way of earnest money was payable and encashed at Panchkula and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ was also received by the petitioner from the respondent at Panchkula on 6.7.1989. The case property i.e. plot in dispute was situated at Panchkula. The balance amount was tendered to the petitioner at the office of Shri Amrik Singh, property dealer who was the arbitrator in the matter at Panchkula. The sale deed was to be executed at Kalka and on 31.8.1989 the respondent remained present at the office of the Tehsildar Kalka with the balance amount. The petitioner had been attending arbitration proceedings at Panchkula. The courts of Ambala had jurisdiction to try the case.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.;