Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2024 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-11-10

S.S.SARON

body2011
JUDGMENT S.S. SARON, J. 1. Rattan Singh (respondent No.2) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel. It is stated by him that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR as he has compromised the matter with petitioner Balbir Singh. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.269 dated 27.12.2001 registered at Police Station City Moga for the offences 420 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and also the consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Rattan Singh (respondent No.2) against Balbir Singh (petitioner) and his brother Daljit Singh. According to the complainant, he had agreed to purchase 20 kanals 14 marlas of land situated in Lehara Bet, Tehsil Zira, Distrit Ferozepur from Balbir Singh (petitioner). An agreement for the purchase of the land was entered into on 19.7.1997 and the rate was settled at `1,50,000/-per kila (acre). The complainant paid `2,50,000/-as earnest money. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 30.7.1998. Balbir Singh (petitioner) executed the agreement to sell in favour of the complainant on 19.9.1997. The complainant remained present in the Court complex for the whole day on 30.7.1998 for execution of the sale deed but the petitioner did not turn up. On request of the complainant and with the intervention of respectables, the petitioner extended the time for execution of the sale deed till 15.9.2001. The complainant from reliable sources, however, got to know that the brother of petitioner-Balbir Singh namely Daljit Singh had sold Khasra No.27/4 and 31/10 out of the above-mentioned land to some other persons. In this way petitioner Balbir Singh and his brother Daljit Singh both had cheated the complainant. It was requested that action be taken. 4. The challan in the case has been filed by the police on 26.2.2003 against Balbir Singh (petitioner) only. However, his brother Daljit Singh was not sent up for trial. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in the case on 29.12.2002. Now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of the compromise dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P1). It is recorded in the compromise that with the intervention of respectables and relations, the subject matter of the FIR has been compromised and both the parties have compromised all their disputes. Now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of the compromise dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P1). It is recorded in the compromise that with the intervention of respectables and relations, the subject matter of the FIR has been compromised and both the parties have compromised all their disputes. As per the compromise, the petitioner has paid `2,50,000/-to the complainant, which have been received by him. The complainant has agreed that he would not pursue the FIR against the petitioner. The complainant has also agreed to withdraw the civil suit filed by him against the petitioner in the civil Courts at Zira, District Ferozepur. Both the parties have agreed that they would not initiate any action of civil or criminal nature against each other and they will withdraw all the cases pending against each other. The complainant-Rattan Singh (respondent No.2) has also deposed an affidavit dated 12.8.2010 which is taken on record wherein the terms of the compromise (Annexure P1) have been accepted and it has been agreed that the dispute stands settled. Besides, he has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court. The dispute in the present case in fact is primarily civil in nature inasmuch as it relates to breach of the agreement dated 19.7.1997 entered into between the petitioner and the complainant. In respect of the dispute which relates to mere breach of an agreement to sell, a criminal prosecution is not normally maintainable. 6. In Ram Biraji Devi v. Umesh Kumar, 2006 (3) RCR (Crl.) 308 (SC) the appellants therein had represented to the complainant that they were badly in need of money and wanted to transfer the plot that had been allotted to them to some person interested to purchase the plot. The complainant expressed his willingness to purchase the said plot. It was alleged that the parties orally agreed that the complainant would pay to the appellants a sum of `4 lacs as price of the plot and on payment of the said amount, the appellants would transfer the plot in favour of the complainant. The complainant expressed his willingness to purchase the said plot. It was alleged that the parties orally agreed that the complainant would pay to the appellants a sum of `4 lacs as price of the plot and on payment of the said amount, the appellants would transfer the plot in favour of the complainant. The complainant alleged that he paid a sum of `80,000/-and the appellant therein agreed to execute a written agreement but later flatly refused the acceptance of `80,000/-and also refused to execute an agreement, which led to filing of a criminal complaint. It was held by the Supreme Court that even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Neither can any guilty intention be attributed to them nor can there possibly be any intention on their part to deceive the complainant. No criminal case is made out by the complainant against the appellants in his complaint and in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded by the Magistrate before taking of the cognizance of the alleged offences. The averments of the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded by the Magistrate would amount to civil liability inter se the parties and no criminal liability can be attributed to the appellants on the basis of the material on record. 7. This Court in Manisha Goyal v. State of Punjab, 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 162 in a case where the seller entered into an agreement to sell his land and after receiving the earnest money neither executed the sale deed nor returned the earnest money held that no offence of cheating or breach of trust was made out. The FIR, it was observed, did not disclose that the accused harboured a dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction or in any manner committed an offence of criminal breach of trust. 8. In Nageshwar Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. Narayan Singh and another, AIR 1999 SC 1480 the accused/appellant therein was facing a charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The respondents-complainants accused him of backing out from an agreement to sell certain properties situated in Patna. 8. In Nageshwar Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. Narayan Singh and another, AIR 1999 SC 1480 the accused/appellant therein was facing a charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The respondents-complainants accused him of backing out from an agreement to sell certain properties situated in Patna. It was alleged that in terms of the agreement, the possession of the plot would stand transferred to the complainants and possession in fact was delivered to them over which they made certain constructions. The complainants therein alleged that the appellant had cheated them of the sum of money which they paid as earnest money and as he was not willing to complete the bargain, the complainants had to file a suit for specific performance which was pending in the Civil Court. It was held after noticing the provisions of Section 415 IPC that at the time when the agreement to sell was executed it could have in no event been termed dishonest so as to hold that the complainants were cheated of the earnest money which they had given to the appellant as part consideration, when possession of the total land involved in the bargain was passed over to the complainants/respondents and which remains in their possession. The liability, it was observed, if any arising by the breach thereof was civil in nature and not criminal. 9. In State of Maharashtra v. Sayed Mohammd Masood and another, 2010 (1) RCR (Crl.) 177 (SC) it was held that simple breach of contract or a case involving pure civil dispute would not attract the penal provisions contained in the IPC either under Section 406 or Section 420 thereof. Every breach of contract, it was held, would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those case breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat had developed later on, it was held, the same cannot amount to cheating. 10. In the present case also a civil suit is pending which the complainant/respondent No.2 in terms of the compromise dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P1) has agreed to withdraw. If the intention to cheat had developed later on, it was held, the same cannot amount to cheating. 10. In the present case also a civil suit is pending which the complainant/respondent No.2 in terms of the compromise dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P1) has agreed to withdraw. Therefore, the matter being civil in nature and also the fact that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the complainant in terms of the compromise dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P1) and the complainant has also agreed to withdraw the civil suit it would be just and expedient to terminate the proceedings by quashing the impugned FIR as the dispute even, if any, has been amicably resolved. 11. The petitioner, however, was declared a proclaimed offender. In respect of a person who has been declared a proclaimed offender, the FIR is not normally to be quashed. However, in the present case as has already been noticed, the dispute is primarily civil in nature. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner was a proclaimed offender is not liable to come in the way to quash the proceedings. Besides, the fact that the parties have compromised the matter would warrant that FIR is quashed so that a quietus is put to the litigation. In Gurpreet Singh @ Khinder v. State of Punjab, 1995 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 127 (P&H) two persons had committed the offence and one of them was arrested while the other escaped. The accused who was arrested was acquitted by the learned trial Court. The other accused was absconding and declared a proclaimed offender. He surrendered subsequently. This Court observed that there was no additional evidence available against the second accused and when the evidence was the same, the continuation of proceedings would result in waste of Court’s time and an unnecessary expenditure on the state exchequer. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed against the other accused as well. 12. In the present case, the FIR was registered on 27.12.2001 and since then the proceedings are pending. However, nothing has been initiated in the Court as the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. The dispute has now been amicably resolved and ever otherwise it has been held to be primarily civil in nature. The dispute even otherwise is personal in nature which is compoundable. However, nothing has been initiated in the Court as the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. The dispute has now been amicably resolved and ever otherwise it has been held to be primarily civil in nature. The dispute even otherwise is personal in nature which is compoundable. In respect of a dispute which is compoundable, the party is liable to approach the Court concerned in the first instance where the dispute is pending. However, in case where from the reading of the FIR no offence is made out, this Court can even otherwise exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. 13. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.269 dated 27.12.2001 registered at Police Station City Moga for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed. Petition allowed.