Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sarjeet Kaur vs Graduate Properties Ltd on 10 June, 2021
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1371 of 2018
Smt. Sarjeet Kaur, W/o Shri Gurunam Singh, Aged About 69 Years,
Caste- Sikh, Occupation- House Wife, R/o Vadala Johal, Amritsar,
Vadal Johal Punjab (Punjab) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Graduate Properties Ltd. Through President Ashok Kumar
Gupta, S/o Late Laxman Das Gupta, Aged About 68 Years,
Caste- Baniya, R/o Block- 20/B, Plot No. 5 & 6 Nehru Nagar,
West Bhilai, Tehsil and District- Durg (C.G.)
2. Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late Babulal Agarwal, Aged
About 49 Years, Jelabi Chowk, Bhilai, Tehsil and District- Durg
(C.G.)
3. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Durg, Tehsil and
District- Durg (C.G.)
4. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Superintendent of Police,
P.S. Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.
For State/Res. No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
10/06/2021
1. The petitioner has filed present petition for quashing of the FIR
dated 15.06.2018 lodged by respondent No. 1 against the
petitioner- Smt. Sarjeet Kaur before Police Station- Supela,
Tahsil & District- Durg (C.G.) for committing offence under
Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. The FIR was registered as FIR No.
0548.
2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner in this case, are
that a sale deed was executed between the petitioner and
Graduate Properties Ltd. through its President Ashok Kumar
Gupta for sale of immovable property as per description given
in the sale deed (Annexure P/2) and in pursuance of the sale
deed, she has received Rs. 50 lakh from respondent No. 1.
The petitioner filed a civil suit before learned First Additional
District Judge, Durg (Annexure P/9) on 04.04.2018 against
respondent No. 1 with a prayer that the sale deed executed
between petitioner and respondent No. 1 dated 31.07.2017 be
declared as null and void as it has been executed adopting
fraudulent act. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 has lodged FIR
against the petitioner before Police Station- Supela, Tahsil &
District- Durg (C.G.) for committing offence under Section 420,
34 of I.P.C. on 15.06.2018. The petitioner has challenged the
registration of FIR mainly contending that the sale deed was
executed by creating undue pressure and it is purely
contractual dispute and it is of civil nature. The FIR has been
registered to adopt pressure tactic by respondent No. 1,
therefore, in civil dispute, FIR has been lodged to take undue
advantage of the criminal procedure. The petitioner has
challenged that sale deed before First Additional District
Judge, Durg (C.G.).
3. On above factual matrix, the petitioner has filed this petition
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 548
registered on 15.06.2018, which has been registered alleging
violation of Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. by the petitioner, which
amounts to abuse of process of law.
4. This petition has come up for hearing before this Court on
19.07.2018, wherein this Court has granted interim protection.
During pendency of this petition, a compromise has been
arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and as
per the compromise, the petitioner has to return Rs. 50 lakh,
which she has received in part consideration of the sale deed
from respondent No. 1 and the sale deed dated 31.07.2017
would be treated as null and void. The compromise
application was filed before First Additional District Judge,
Durg (C.G.). Considering the compromise application
submitted by the parties, the learned First Additional District
Judge, Durg (C.G.) has decreed the suit as per the
compromise submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.
1. The learned trial court has granted decree by which the
sale deed dated 31.07.2017 executed between the petitioner
and respondent No. 1 has been declared as null and void. The
petitioner has already paid Rs. 50 lakh to respondent No. 1,
as such, there is no dispute between the petitioner and
respondent No. 1. The compromise order dated 26.11.2018
has also been filed by the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the
compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the
offence under Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. is now compoundable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the
judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRMP
No. 344 of 2015 (Santosh Chandak & others Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh). He also placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & others Vs. State of
Haryana & another1 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab2.
7. Considering the facts that now there is no dispute between the
petitioner and respondent No. 1, offence under Section 420,
34 of I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner, which
relates to purchase of property and the same has been settled
between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No. 1
have also been examined by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court on 27.01.2021, wherein, the petitioner
and respondent No. 1 have recorded their statement and it
has been said that the said dispute has been settled between
the parties, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 have
submitted before Additional Registrar (Judicial) that their
dispute is settled and now there is no dispute between them.
Respondent No. 1 has submitted that in view of the
compromise arrived at between them and the judgment dated
26.11.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Durg
(C.G.), he does not want to prosecute the proceeding further
and if the proceeding is quashed, he has no objection.
1 (2003) 4 SCC 675
2 (2012) 10 SCC 303
8. It is not in dispute that at the instance of respondent No. 1,
offence under Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. has been registered
against the petitioner, which relates to the purchase of
property, the dispute has been settled between the parties,
petitioner and respondent No. 1 have been examined before
the Additional Registrar (Judicial) and they have submitted in
equal words that matter has been settled and no dispute is
existing. Since offence under Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. is
compoundable with the leave of the Court, therefore, the FIR
in question bearing FIR No. 0548 registered on 15.06.2018
against the petitioner before Police Station- Supela, Tahsil &
District- Durg (C.G.) for committing offence under Section 420,
34 of I.P.C., deserves to be and is accordingly quashed in the
interest of justice.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Judicial
Magistrate for closure of the case in the event of filing of
charge-sheet by the State.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
