Pushpinder Singh vs State of Punjab and another

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR registered at the instance of Kirpal Singh alleging that the complainant had agreed to sell eight killas of land to the petitioner vide agreement of sale dated 28.6.2005 for a sum of Rs. 16 lacs. The said amount of Rs. 16 lacs was received by the complainant from the petitioner. The petitioner had also got a power of attorney dated 28.6.2005, executed in favour of Sewa Singh besides getting another Will executed. Thereafter, the petitioner had shown his intention not to get the sale deed of the property executed in favour of the complainant and told the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 21 lacs to him against the amount of Rs. 16 lacs received by the complainant. The complainant had agreed to return the amount of Rs. 21 lacs to the petitioner in installments. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 13 lacs out of Rs. 21 lacs by different cheques and in cash. The complainant had to pay the remaining amount after payment of Rs. 13 lacs but the petitioner had refused to receive the remaining amount. The allegation against the petitioner is that despite having the power of attorney, will and agreement of sale cancelled, the petitioner got the sale deed of the property executed from Sewa Singh holder of power of attorney in the name of his wife Avtar Kaur to the extent of half share and in the name of Rani, the mother-in-law of the petitioner to the extent of another half share. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it is an admitted case of the parties that a civil suit regarding the controversy was filed by the complainant. The suit having been dismissed, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of the Court.

On asking of the Court, counsel informed that an appeal against the order passed by the civil Court is pending before the appellate Court.

It has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence regarding the receipt of a sum of Rs. 13 lacs by the petitioner. Dispute, if any, entails the civil consequences. The matter being sub judice before the civil Court continuation of proceedings will be an abuse of process of the Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is apparent from the allegations in the FIR that the petitioner though had paid a sum of Rs. 16 lacs to the complainant but subsequently he on cancellation of the transaction received sum of Rs. 13 lacs. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has got sale deed of the property of the complainant executed on the basis of the power of attorney and Will which was also simultaneously executed in favour of Sewa Singh. The wife and the mother-in-law and the petitioner are beneficiaries of the sale deed executed on the basis of alleged cancelled power of attorney.

I have also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has not been any cancellation of the agreement of sale, power of attorney or Will executed on 28.6.2005. It will not be appropriate, at this stage, to enter into the niceties of the trial and to settle the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioner. But it is sufficient to observe here that the grievance of the complainant is that he had been dishonestly deprived of his property by the petitioner in the circumstances mentioned in the FIR. The present case does not fall within any of the parameters laid down in case State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, for quashing of the FIR. Besides this, it will not be out of place to observe here that in view of the judgment in case Lee Kun Hee and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the criminal proceedings for cheating can be continued despite the fact that an aggrieved person, complainant, has filed a civil suit for recovery of the property.

No ground is made out for quashing of the FIR.

Dismissed. However, it is made clear that observations made in this order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner during the course of trial. The trial will be conducted and decided irrespective of any of the observations made in this order. I have also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in lodging of criminal prosecution is indicative of the falsity of the allegations. It will be pre-mature to express any opinion as the statutory bar of Section 466 Cr.P.C., whether applicable in the present case, cannot be decided and has to be left for adjudication by the trial Court.