Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 268 (PNJ)

Prem Singh v. State Of Haryana

2002-03-05

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2002
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The facts in this petition are as under :- 2. Topan Dass, the father of respondent No. 2 was the owner in possession of agricultural land situated in village Rasulpur, District Faridabad. He entered into an agreement for sale of the aforesaid land on 10.11.1991 and also received a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- as earnest money and gave a receipt thereof. It was also stipulated in the agreement that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.1992 and that on failure to do so within the stipulated time, the purchaser would be entitled to get the sale deed executed in accordance with law. Topan Dass, however, died on 9.3.1992 and the property which was the subject matter of the agreement, was mutated in the name of his legal heirs including his son, Narinder Kumar, respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter approached the respondents for the execution of the sale deed but they declined to do so. A legal notice served by the petitioners on the respondents too had no effect. Respondent No. 2 then lodged FIR No. 324 dated 8.6.1993 in Police Station, City Palwal for offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code on the plea that the agreement dated 10.11.1991 allegedly executed by his father was in fact a forgery. It is also the conceded position that petitioner No. 1 had also filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The present petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. aforesaid and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom primarily on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and as a civil suit was pending between the parties with regard to the validity or otherwise of the agreement, the very initiation of the criminal proceedings was not justified. It has further been pleaded that as the name of petitioner No. 2 did not figure in the F.I.R., there was absolutely no case made out against him and that the name of petitioner No. 3 too found mention in the challan as an accused as also a witness, which in itself was a serious contradiction. 3. Notice of this petition was issued on 7.3.1994 and the further proceedings before the trial Court were directed to be stayed. The said stay order continues to operate as of today. 4. 3. Notice of this petition was issued on 7.3.1994 and the further proceedings before the trial Court were directed to be stayed. The said stay order continues to operate as of today. 4. During the course of the preliminary hearing, respondent No. 2 appeared in person on 4.7.1994. A reply was also filed on his behalf in which it has been averred that the civil and criminal proceedings could go simultaneously. 5. I have heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and have gone through the pleadings on record. 6. It is the admitted position that a civil suit pertaining to dispute had been filed by petitioner No. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to spell out as to the fate of the civil suit. It is, however, clear that in case the civil court finds that the agreement in question had been validly executed, the continuance of criminal proceedings would not be called for and in case a decision is taken the other way, the continuance of the criminal proceedings could be said to have some justification. 7. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that in case a finding is recorded in the civil suit that the agreement was not a forgery, the criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 324 dated 8.6.1992 would be deemed to have been quashed. However, if the civil suit is dismissed and a finding is recorded that the agreement in question was a forgery, the criminal proceedings would continue. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court dealing with the criminal case on August 7, 2002.