Sarabjit Kaur vs The State Of Punjab

Sarabjit Kaur …Appellant

Versus

The State of Punjab & Anr. …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The Appellant having failed before the High Court has

filed the present appeal. A prayer was made for quashing

of F.I.R. No.430 dated 16.10.2017 under Sections 420, 120-

B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petition

filed before the High Court seeking quashing thereof was

dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a plot Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.03.02 measuring 1 (Kanal) on 27.05.2013 with Malkit Kaur, wife 17:24:12 IST Reason:

of Surender Singh resident of Dhillon Colony, Near

1 Electricity Grid, G.T. Road, Moga, Jagraon, District

Ludhiana, Punjab on 27.05.2013. On the basis thereof

appellant entered into an Agreement to Sell the same to

Sarabjit Kaur wife of Darshan Singh (respondent No.2) on

18.11.2013. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed

as 25.06.2014. It was categorically mentioned in the

Agreement to Sell that at present the vendor was not the

owner of the property. The appellant received a sum of ₹

5,00,000/- as earnest money and the date of registration of

sale deed was fixed as 25.06.2014. The date for execution

of sale deed was extended to 24.12.2014 on receipt of

additional sum of ₹ 75,000/-. A complaint was filed by

Darshan Singh (complainant/ respondent No.2), son of

Jangir Singh on 30.09.2015 with reference to the same

alleged Agreement to Sell however against property

dealers Manmohan Singh, son of Prakash Singh and Ranjit

Singh alias Billa, son of Pal Singh. In the aforesaid

complaint, reference was made to two other transactions

entered into by Darshan Singh and prayer was that an

amount of ₹ 29,39,500/-be got recovered from the

property dealers.

2

3. The aforesaid complaint was investigated and finally

on 18.05.2016, it was opined that the dispute being civil in

nature, no police action was required. Darshan Singh

made another complaint on 05.10.2016 with the same

allegations without disclosing the fate of his earlier

complaint. Referring to the earlier enquiry made, the

aforesaid complaint was consigned to record on

23.01.2017. Thereafter, another complaint was made by

Darshan Singh against the appellant, Ranjit Singh and

Manmohan Singh. It is on the basis thereof that F.I.R. in

question was registered under Sections 420, 120-B and

506 IPC against the appellant, Manmohan Singh and Ranjit

Singh.

4. The argument raised by learned counsel for the

appellant is that the respondent No.2 who claims himself

to be the husband of vendee had filed two complaints

earlier with the same set of allegations and those were

consigned to record on the basis of the legal opinion

received opining the case to be of civil nature. In the first

such complaint, there were no allegations against the

appellant. In fact the dispute is purely civil in nature. In

case the appellant failed to execute the sale deed for 3 which admittedly the last date fixed was 24.12.2014.

Respondent No.2 could have availed of his appropriate

remedy of specific performance of Agreement to Sell but

no suit was filed. However, third complaint was filed

without disclosing the fate of earlier two complaints. The

F.I.R. in question was registered on the basis of the

complaint filed by respondent No.2 on 15.06.2017 i.e.

nearly three years after the date fixed for execution of sale

deed. The respondent No.2 had never issued any notice

prior to the filing of the compliant with the police seeking

any remedy. A perusal of three complaints filed by

respondent No.2 clearly suggest that from the initial prayer

for return of the amount paid by him, subsequently the

allegations of cheating was made. In the first complaint

while referring to different transactions, the allegation was

only against the property dealers not against the appellant

whereas in subsequent complaint improvement was made

and she was also involved.

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the

chargesheet having been filed, the appellant can raise all

the pleas before the court below. It is not a case for

quashing of the F.I.R.

4

6. Despite service of notice, respondent

No.2/complainant has not appeared.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

paper book.

8. On the material placed on record by the parties, it is

evident that an Agreement to Sell was executed by the

appellant in favour of the wife of respondent No.2, namely

Sarabjit Kaur for sale of plot measuring 1 (kanal). The

agreement to Sell specifically mentions the fact that

appellant/ the vendor gets entitled to the property on the

basis of the Agreement to Sell executed in her favour by

Malkit Kaur on 27.05.2013. The last date fixed for

registration of sale deed was 25.06.2014 which was

extended to 24.12.2014. There is nothing placed on

record by the complainant or the State to show that

besides filing of the criminal complaint, respondent No.2

had initiated any civil proceedings for execution of sale

deed on the basis of Agreement to Sell or in the alternative

return of the earnest money.

5

9. A perusal of the first complaint made by respondent

No.2 on 30.09.2015 shows that the prayer was made for

return of the amount paid by him with no allegation of

cheating. It was filed only against Manmohan Singh and

Ranjit Singh, the property dealers. Reference in the

aforesaid complaint was made to the Agreement to Sell

executed between the parties. In addition, there was a

reference to two other Agreements to Sell executed in

total. A prayer was made for getting an amount of

₹29,39,500/- refunded from the property dealers.

Though, in the aforesaid complaint reference was made to

the Agreement to Sell in question, however there was no

complaint made against the appellant. The aforesaid

complaint was investigated by the Economic Offences

Wing and a report was submitted to the Senior

Superintendent of Police on 22.03.2016. A report was

submitted on the basis of which the legal opinion was

sought from the District Attorney who opined that no

criminal offence was made out and the complainant shall

be at liberty to invoke jurisdiction of the civil court. The

aforesaid opinion was accepted by the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural) on 18.5.2016.

6

10. Thereafter, Darshan Singh (respondent No.2) made

another complaint to DIG, Ludhiana on 05.10.2016 which

again was enquired into and a finding that earlier identical

complaint was filed as no criminal offence was made out

and the second complaint was consigned to record. In the

second complaint, there was no reference made to the

earlier complaint filed by Darshan Singh.

11. Still not satisfied as the result of the earlier complaint

was not to the liking of the respondent No.2. He filed

another complaint on 23.01.2017. Thereafter, another

complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 on 15.06.2017

on the basis thereof F.I.R. in question was registered. On

the facts of the case in hand, it is evident that the effort of

respondent No.2 was merely to put pressure on appellant

while involving her in a criminal case to get his money

back whereas there is nothing pleaded that respondent No.

2 that he was ever ready and willing to get the sale deed

registered. There was no effort made by the respondent

No.2 or the vendee in the Agreement to Sell to initiate any

civil proceedings to get the sale deed executed on the

basis of the Agreement to Sell. In fact, the last date fixed

7 for execution of the sale deed even after extension was

24.12.2014.

12. There is nothing on record to suggest that any notice

was issued by the respondent No.2 or the vendee to the

appellant to get the sale deed registered just either before

expiry of the last date fixed for executed of sale deed or

immediately thereafter. No civil proceedings were also

initiate rather the respondent No.2 proceeded only by filing

complaints with the police two of which were earlier filed.

Had there been any civil proceedings initiated, the

question of readiness and willingness of the vendee is also

an aspect to be examined by the Court.

13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal

prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest

intention is shown right at the beginning of the

transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up

promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings.

From the facts available on record, it is evident that the

respondent No.2 had improved his case ever since the first

complaint was filed in which there were no allegations

against the appellant rather it was only against the

8 property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that

the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first

complaint, the only request was for return of the amount

paid by the respondent No.2. When the offence was made

out on the basis of the first complaint, the second

complaint was filed with improved version making

allegations against the appellant as well which was not

there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be

to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on

the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The

criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling

scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes.

Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out,

criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in

question on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered was

filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for

registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to

continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.

9

14. Hence, in our opinion the impugned order passed by

the High Court deserves to be set aside. The petition filed

by appellant for quashing of F.I.R. is ordered to be allowed.

As a consequence, F.I.R. No.430 dated 16.10.2017 and all

the subsequent proceedings therewith are ordered to be

quashed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

……………..…………………J. (ABHAY S. OKA)

…………..……………………J. (RAJESH BINDAL) New Delhi;

01.03.2023.

10