Pardeep Kumar Etc vs State Of Haryana Etc
2023 Latest Caselaw 9478 P&H

                                                                  2023:PHHC:084936
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                AT CHANDIGARH

                        Sr. No.201                              CRM-M-735-2009 (O&M)
                                                                Date of Decision: July, 06, 2023


                        PARDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER                                ..PETITIONERS

                                                          VERSUS

                        STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                           ...RESPONDENTS


                        CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

                        Present:     Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
                                     Mr. Krishan K.Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
                                     Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate and
                                     Mr. Vineet Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
                                     *****

                        RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL)

CRM-1207-2009

Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-735-2009

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.261,

dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure P-5) under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC

registered at Police Station Safidon, District Jind and the supplementary

report (Annexure P-8) filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. along with all

consequential proceedings arising out of the above said FIR.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they purchased the

property from the brother of respondent No.2, the author of the FIR.

However, they purchased the property more than the share of their vendor.

Accordingly, it has been alleged by the complainant that the petitioners and

their vendor have colluded and committed a fraud and have grabbed the

share of the complainant as well. Accordingly, FIR has been registered.

ANKUR GOYAL
2023.07.10 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
                         CRM-M-735-2009 (O&M)                         --2--       2023:PHHC:084936

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners are the bonafide purchaser from the brother of respondent No.2.

Therefore, they cannot be said to be colluding in the crime. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that regarding the said

property, respondent No.2 had filed a civil suit. However, that civil suit was

dismissed by the trial Court. Though in the appeal, the judgment and decree

passed by the trial Court were reversed, however, the petitioners have filed

RSA No.5524 of 2014 before this Court which is still pending. Hence, it is

submitted that the FIR against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. Still

further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence

under Section 420 IPC is not even made out.

4. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2-complainant,

as well as counsel for the State, has submitted that as per the allegations

made in the FIR, the offence under Section 420 IPC is directly made out.

Not only that, even during the investigation, the police have collected

sufficient material to show the involvement of the petitioners in the crime.

Qua the civil litigation, it is pointed out by the counsel for respondent No.2-

complainant that although, the trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the

complainant, however, the said judgment and decree was reversed by the

Lower Appellate Court in that case by recording a specific finding that there

was no bonafides involved in the purchased of land by the petitioners from

the brother of respondent No.2. Still further, although, the petitioners have

filed regular second appeal before this Court, however, the judgment and

decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court has not been stayed by this

Court. It is further submitted that, otherwise also, judgment and decree

passed in civil litigation filed by respondent No.2-complainant has nothing ANKUR GOYAL 2023.07.10 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-735-2009 (O&M) --3-- 2023:PHHC:084936

to do with the criminal case. The issues in criminal case are altogether

different than the issue involved in the civil suit.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the case file, this Court finds that if the complaint/ FIR as such is

read, the ingredients of the offence are, prima facie, disclosed. Not only

that, even during the investigation, police have found sufficient material to

implicate the petitioners and accordingly, the challan against the petitioners

has already been filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that, prima facie,

offence against the petitioners is not made out.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the plea of being a

bonafide purchaser, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that the

purchase by the petitioners was bonafide one. It is not even in dispute that

the property purchased by the petitioners is having revenue records,

reflecting the shares of all the parties including the respondent No.2-

complainant, as well as, his brother who sold the property to the petitioners.

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had not purchased

the property more than the share of their vendor. Rather, the record shows

otherwise. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners being a bona fide purchaser

cannot be countenanced, at this stage.

7. The petitioners have relied upon the civil litigation pending

between the parties. However, even in the civil litigation, nothing has come

in favour of the petitioners so far. Rather, the judgment passed by the

Lower Appellate Court has gone against the petitioners, as such. Even there

is no stay granted by the Court against operation of the said judgment qua

the present petitioners. Though, there is an order of staying the operation of

the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court, but that is, in the appeal

filed by other co-accused. However, the trial against that co-accused is ANKUR GOYAL 2023.07.10 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-735-2009 (O&M) --4-- 2023:PHHC:084936

already continuing and has reached a final stage of adjudication. Therefore,

that order is of no assistance for the case of the petitioners. Otherwise also,

as per the provisions contained in Sections 40, 41 & 42 of Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in judgment passed in any

other case is totally irrelevant except in a case where the said judgment bars

the trial itself; is a fact in issue in a case or it relates to the aspects specified

in Sections 41 & 42 of the Act. It is obvious that the said judgment is not

the fact in issue in the present case. Otherwise also, the civil litigation, per

se, does not bar the criminal litigation, as such. Both can go on

simultaneously. In the criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove

the case beyond reasonable doubt. That job is to be accomplished

prosecution mandatorily, to get the petitioners convicted in the case. If the

prosecution fails to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, then the

petitioners would be acquitted. Before that, everything is to be determined

by the trial Court during the proceedings. All the arguments taken by the

petitioners are in the nature of defence which they all free to take during

trial.

8. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition,

the same is dismissed.

                        July 06, 2023                                     (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
                        Ankur                                                    JUDGE

                        Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes

                        Whether Reportable                              No




ANKUR GOYAL
2023.07.10 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment