Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chand And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 May, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-7568 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-7568 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:7.5.2013
Subhash Chand and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Bipin Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.K.D.S.Paul, Addl.A.G, Punjab.
Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.414 dated 26.11.2010 under Section 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Tripuri Town, Patiala District Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were bonafide purchasers for consideration. Petitioners had no knowledge that the seller had already executed Criminal Misc. No.M-7568 of 2011 (O&M) 2 any agreement to sell qua his property in favour of the complainant. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners were nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further submitted that all the accused, in connivance with each other and with a view to defraud the complainant, had executed the second sale deed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they Criminal Misc. No.M-7568 of 2011 (O&M) 3 are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the Criminal Misc. No.M-7568 of 2011 (O&M) 4 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." In the present case, prosecution story, in brief, is that Mohan Singh had executed an agreement to sell his land in favour of the complainant on 18.2.2010 and had received ` 30,00,000/- towards earnest money. However, before the date fixed for executing the sale deed i.e. 10.11.2010, Mohan Singh executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners on 11.2.2010 by playing a fraud on complainant.
Thus, in the present case, petitioners are subsequent Criminal Misc. No.M-7568 of 2011 (O&M) 5 purchasers for consideration. Petitioners cannot be said to be having any knowledge with regard to the execution of agreement to sell by Mohan Singh, seller, in favour of the complainant. Admittedly, petitioners had paid ` 34,00,000/- as sale consideration to the seller before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed in their favour. Thus, petitioners can be said to be bona fide purchasers for consideration and consequently, continuation of criminal proceedings against them would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.414 dated 26.11.2010 under Section 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Tripuri Town, Patiala District Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners,10 are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 07, 2013 anita