Crl. Misc. No. M- 440 of 2010 (O&M) v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Judgment

agmal Singh well as Nirmal Singh and Sagan Kumar assured the applicant that the land is free from all encumbrances and Darshan Singh also agreed to purchase the land along with the applicant to the extent of one half share. All these persons didn't disclose about the earlier agreements to the applicant. 6. That the applicant believed the version of these persons and agreed to purchase one half share of the land mentioned in para no.2 above at the rate of Rs.24,00,000/- per acre. Consequently Nirmal Singh and Sagan Kumar executed an agreement to sell dated

18.10.2008 regarding the land mentioned in para no.2 of the applicant in favour of the applicant to the extent of one half share and Darshan Singh to the extent of one half share. The earnest money of Rs.20 lacs was again paid on 22.10.2008 and earnest money of Rs.12,00,000/- was paid on 31.10.2008 Crl. Misc. No. M- 440 of 2010 (O&M) 4 to Nirmal Singh and Sagan Kumar out of the total amount of earnest money of Rs.42,00,000/- paid to the Nirmal Singh and Sagun Kumar Darshan Singh had paid only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 3 lac on 18.10.2008 and Rs.7 lacs on

22.10.2008 and the remaining amount of Rs.32,00,000/- has been paid by the applicant to Nirmal Singh and Sagun Kumar. Darshan Singh had agreed to pay the amount of sale consideration to the extent of one half share at the time of execution and registration at the rate of deed after adjusting amount of Rs.10 lacs which he paid an earnest money. The target date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 20.1.2009. The agreement was duly executed in the presence of witnesses and the same was duly attested by the Notary Public. Copy of the agreement is attached herewith. It is pertinent to mention here that on 18.10.2008 itself Jagmal Singh received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the applicant as commission for the aforesaid deal. 7. That on 11.11.2008 Bittu alias Lovkesh who held himself as Bhanja of Nirmal Singh and Sagun Kumar approached the applicant at his residence and requested and persuaded that Sagun Kumar and Nirmal Kumar are his Mamas and they are in need of Rs.1,00,000/- and they have asked him (Bittu) to get this amount from the applicant. Relying upon Bittu the applicant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Bittu in the presence of

Nirmal Singh son of Shri Kandhara Singh r/o Shahabad Markanda District Kurukshetra. 8. That the applicant was Crl. Misc. No. M- 440 of 2010 (O&M) 5 and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the applicant remained present in the office of Sub Registrar Shahabad on 20.1.2009 along with balance sale consideration and the money required for execution and registration of sale deed stamps etc. but the Nirmal Singh and Sagun Kumar didn't come present to execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant Darshan Singh also did not come present. The applicant got an affidavit attested from Sub Registrar/Executive Magistrate Shahabad showing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Copy of the affidavit is attached herewith. 9. That thereafter the applicant approached all the said persons and requested to execute the sale deed of the land in his favour as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated

18.10.2008 but they had been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and had been making one or the other false and lame excuses and did not execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant. 10. That on account of act and conduct of the accused persons applicant felt suspicious and made enquiries and the applicant came to know that Nirmal Singh and Shagun Kumar have already executed two earlier agreements as mentioned in para no.3 & 4 of the application and without disclosing the factum of earlier agreements and with malafide dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat and defraud applicant all these persons by hatching criminal conspiracy with each other forged and fabricated the Crl. Misc. No. M- 440 of 2010 (O&M) 6 agreement dated 18.10.2008 in favour of the applicant by making false representation that the land is free from all encumbrances and extorted a huge amount of Rs.33,50,000/- from the applicant. 11. That the intention of all these persons was dishonest and malafide from the very beginning and in pursuance of their dishonest intention all these persons dishonestly and fraudulently by hatching criminal conspiracy each other have cheated the applicant and get prepared the agreement to sell dated 18.10.2008 with intention to cause wrongful loss to the applicant and to gain undue advantage.

12. That Darshan Singh is criminal minded person and is involved in several forgery and criminal cases and details of some of the cases are as under:- a) FIR No.247 dated

23.12.2004 u/s 420 IPC of Police Station Rajpura; b) FIR No.172 dated 20.10.2005 u/s 420,406,506,120 IPC police station Barara; c) FIR No.4 dated 19.1.2007 u/s 420,406,506,120-B IPC Police Station Panjokhra; d) FIR No.18 dated 16.3.2008 u/s 323,324,325,326,506,148,149 IPC, Police Station Babain; e) FIR No.57 dated 26.6.1999 u/s 148,149,427,506,307 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, Police Batain; f) FIR No.13 dated 12.2.2001 u/s 364,120-B,34,302 IPC Police Station Babain; g) FIR No.31 dated 18.4.2009 u/s 307,325,342,384,323,506,148,149 IPC P.S. Babain. 13. That all the above said persons have committed the offences of cheating, forgery and fabrication by hatching criminal conspiracy with each other. It is, therefore, respectfully Crl. Misc. No. M- 440 of 2010 (O&M) 7 prayed that necessary legal action may kindly be taken against all the above said persons for committing the offences. Sd/- Applicant Narinder Singh Cheema son of Shri Bhupinder Singh son of Shri Ishwar Singh, resident of H.No.337/13 New Markanda Colony, Opposite PWD Rest House, Shahabad Markanda, Distt. Kurukshetra M.9991111220 dated 31.7.2009." After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 440 of 2010 (O&M) 8 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 440 of 2010 (O&M) 9 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.” A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases. The investigation of the case is going on. Some of the co-accused are yet to be arrested. In these circumstances, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. Dismissed. July 1, 2010 Anand (SABINA) JUDGE