Narinder Singh vs Yash Pal Singh Bhatia

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

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. 11 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 Ist 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 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR Annexure P6 and chargesheet Annexure P7 as also the proceedings in pursuance to the First Information Report pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist 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, Ist 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 injunction for execution of the agreement and resort could not be had to criminal proceedings.

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 at Ambala had jurisdiction to try the case.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

Admittedly the agreement to sell the plot situated in Industrial Area, Phase I, Panchkula was executed at Chandigarh copy of which is Annexure P1. In pursuance to this agreement a sum of Rs. 1 lac was paid to the petitioner by way of earnest money and he issued receipt Annexure P1/A. Out of this amount of Rs. 1 lac, Rs.10,000/ were paid in cash and Rs. 90,000/ were paid through bank draft No. QLM 637063 dated 5.7.1989 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Panchkula. Copy of the bank draft is Annexure R1. This amount was received by the petitioner at Panchkula. On 6.7.1989 another sum of Rs.10,000/ was alleged to have been paid to Narinder Singh and he executed receipt Annexure R2 at Panchkula. Arbitration proceedings regarding the dispute arising out of agreement to sell also took place at Panchkula as is evident from Annexure R3. The petitioner is a resident of Panchkula. He received earnest money at that place and he refused to receive the balance amount at Panchkula. The sale deed with respect to the plot situated at Panchkula was to be executed at Kalka where the respondent was alleged to have remained present, with the whole of the money, on the date fixed. It is thus evident that although the agreement was executed at Chandigarh, various acts were done in pursuance to that agreement at Panchkula and Kalka and the court at Ambala had jurisdiction to try the case. The First Information Report is not liable to be quashed simply on the ground that the court at Ambala had no jurisdiction. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.