Sanjay Shankar Wagh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1143520
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-19-2014
AppellantSanjay Shankar Wagh
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
133 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-15902 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: may 19, 2014 sanjay shankar wagh ...petitioner versus state of punjab ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh present: mr.deepak sibal, senior advocate with ms.balpreet sidhu, advocate for the petitioner. **** inderjit singh, j. petitioner sanjay shankar wagh has filed this petition against state of punjab under section 482 cr.p.c.for quashing of fir no.85 dated 23.03.2006 under sections 406, 420 and 120-b ipc registered at police station division no.5, ludhiana. the brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are that as per the fir dated 23.03.2006 lodged by kulwant singh, an agreement was allegedly entered into between kulwant singh and m/s silvassa company (for brevity 'company') for the purchase of land in village mohi. this agreement is allegedly dated 31.05.2003. it is further alleged in the fir that earnest money was paid by the complainant to the company but the company did not get the sale deed registered. it is also alleged that after about 2-2½ years amrit gulati vineet 2014.06.06 12:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-15902 of 2014 -2- pal singh sethi told the complainant that the petitioner is the power of attorney holder of company and he will get the sale deed registered. for getting the sale deed registered, amrit pal singh sethi demanded and was paid `2 lacs, whereas the petitioner demanded and paid `4 lacs by the complainant on 11.12.2005 and in spite of the above, the complainant alleged that the sale deed was not registered. it is stated in the petition that fir is false. it is further stated in the petition that complainant had filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell dated 31.05.2003. the perusal of the plaint dated 24/25.12.2005 shows that the same does not contain any allegation with regard to any money alleged to have been paid to the petitioner. had such payment been made as alleged in the fir on 11.12.2005, the same would have certainly been mentioned in the plaint which is dated 24/25.12.2005. at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no mention of payment of `4 lacs to the present petitioner in the civil suit which is annexed as annexure p-2. he further argued that the suit has been dismissed by the court but the appeal is pending. learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that in the civil suit, the petitioner is not a party. i have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. from the record, i find that earlier the challan was presented on 25.10.2007 and charged qua other petitioners have been framed. the petitioner appeared in the court and has been gulati vineet 2014.06.06 12:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-15902 of 2014 -3- released on bail on 25.12.2013 but charge has not been framed so far. for the quashing of the fir, the petitioner is to show whether no offence is made out from the averments or the fir filed against him is false and frivolous or the filing of the fir is misuse of the process of the court/law. in the present case, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the record, nothing is there to say that filing of the fir in the present case is in any way misuse of the process of the court/law. there is also nothing on the record from which, at this stage, it can be held that the averments given in the complaint are totally false or allegations are levelled with malafide intention. the perusal of the fir also does not show that no offene is made out against the present petitioner. these are disputed facts whether any money was paid to the petitioner as misrepresented by him or whether this money was actually paid or not paid and the fact of omission of this fact in the civil suit etc.all these facts are to be determined by the trial court. these facts cannot be decided at this stage without there being any evidence produced by the parties. as regarding the facts that civil suit is dismissed and the fact that petitioner has not been made a party in the civil suit,, the affect of the same is also to be seen by the trial court. from the above discussion, i find that no ground is made out for quashing of the fir. therefore, the present petition is dismissed. may 19, 2014 (inderjit singh) vgulati judge gulati vineet 2014.06.06 12:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-15902 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: May 19, 2014 Sanjay Shankar Wagh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Deepak Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms.Balpreet Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner Sanjay Shankar Wagh has filed this petition against State of Punjab under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of FIR No.85 dated 23.03.2006 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana.

The brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are that as per the FIR dated 23.03.2006 lodged by Kulwant Singh, an agreement was allegedly entered into between Kulwant Singh and M/s Silvassa Company (for brevity 'Company') for the purchase of land in village Mohi.

This agreement is allegedly dated 31.05.2003.

It is further alleged in the FIR that earnest money was paid by the complainant to the Company but the Company did not get the sale deed registered.

It is also alleged that after about 2-2½ years Amrit Gulati Vineet 2014.06.06 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-15902 of 2014 -2- Pal Singh Sethi told the complainant that the petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of Company and he will get the sale deed registered.

For getting the sale deed registered, Amrit Pal Singh Sethi demanded and was paid `2 lacs, whereas the petitioner demanded and paid `4 lacs by the complainant on 11.12.2005 and in spite of the above, the complainant alleged that the sale deed was not registered.

It is stated in the petition that FIR is false.

It is further stated in the petition that complainant had filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell dated 31.05.2003.

The perusal of the plaint dated 24/25.12.2005 shows that the same does not contain any allegation with regard to any money alleged to have been paid to the petitioner.

Had such payment been made as alleged in the FIR on 11.12.2005, the same would have certainly been mentioned in the plaint which is dated 24/25.12.2005.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no mention of payment of `4 lacs to the present petitioner in the Civil Suit which is annexed as Annexure P-2.

He further argued that the suit has been dismissed by the Court but the appeal is pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that in the civil suit, the petitioner is not a party.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

From the record, I find that earlier the challan was presented on 25.10.2007 and charged qua other petitioners have been framed.

The petitioner appeared in the Court and has been Gulati Vineet 2014.06.06 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-15902 of 2014 -3- released on bail on 25.12.2013 but charge has not been framed so far.

For the quashing of the FIR, the petitioner is to show whether no offence is made out from the averments or the FIR filed against him is false and frivolous or the filing of the FIR is misuse of the process of the Court/law.

In the present case, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the record, nothing is there to say that filing of the FIR in the present case is in any way misuse of the process of the Court/law.

There is also nothing on the record from which, at this stage, it can be held that the averments given in the complaint are totally false or allegations are levelled with malafide intention.

The perusal of the FIR also does not show that no offene is made out against the present petitioner.

These are disputed facts whether any money was paid to the petitioner as misrepresented by him or whether this money was actually paid or not paid and the fact of omission of this fact in the Civil Suit etc.All these facts are to be determined by the trial Court.

These facts cannot be decided at this stage without there being any evidence produced by the parties.

As regarding the facts that civil suit is dismissed and the fact that petitioner has not been made a party in the civil suit,, the affect of the same is also to be seen by the trial Court.

From the above discussion, I find that no ground is made out for quashing of the FIR.

Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.

May 19, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Gulati Vineet 2014.06.06 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh