Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinderpal Singh Aulakh And ... vs Daljit Singh And Another on 1 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
(1)
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
Date of Decision:- 01.06.2023
Narinderpal Singh Aulakh and others
....Petitioners
Vs.
Daljit Singh and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Argued by:- Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate with
Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Hakikath Grewal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. CL Pawar, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal
complaint No.435 dated 6.9.2012 titled Dr.Daljeet Singh Vs.
Narinderpal Singh Aulakh and others under Sections 420, 379, 380,
506, 120B IPC (Annexure P-9), pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar and summoning order
(Annexure P-13) dated 15.04.2013 whereby the petitioners have been
summoned as an accused by the aforesaid Court under Sections 420,
1 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
506 read with Section 120B IPC and all the consequent proceedings
arising therefrom.
The brief facts has alleged in the complaint Annexure P-9 are as
follows:-
a) That petitioner No.2 Roop Aulakh, petitioner No.3 Harpreet
Bhullar and petitioner No.5 Harcharan Kaur entered into an
agreement to sell their land measuring 106 kanals 19 marlas situated
in village Kala Ghanupur @ Rs.8 lakhs per acre with respondent
No.1 Dr. Daljit Singh on 2.7.1994 and thereafter the accused persons
hatched a conspiracy and did not perform their part of the agreement
even after receiving the entire sale consideration and respondent No.1
was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Then respondent No.1, his wife and daughter filed suit for specific
performance and during pendency of the same the matter was
compromised and compromise deed Annexure P-1 was executed
between the parties. That as per said compromise petitioner No.1 to 3
and 5 admitted the claim of respondent No.1 regarding land
measuring 62 kanals 6 marlas and having no objection if the suit was
decreed qua land measuring 44 kanals 13 marlas out of
aforementioned land measuring 62 kanals 6 marlas out of total land
measuring 106 kanals 19 marlas and petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 agreed
to execute the sale deed regarding aforesaid 44 kanals 13 marlas of
land within six months from the date of decree and they also admitted
2 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
receipt of full and final sale consideration of Rs.44,65,000/- in
respect thereof. The suit for specific performance was decreed by the
trial Court vide judgment dated 13.10.2007 on the basis of aforesaid
compromise deed. Even thereafter petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 and
petitioner No.1 who signed the compromise deed Annexure P-1 as a
witness, failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of compromise
deed Annexure P-1 and had not executed the sale deed with regard to
aforesaid land measuring 44 kanals 13 marlas as they were having
dishonest intention to deceive respondent No.1 and they lured
respondent No.1 to make the payment of entire sale consideration at
the very beginning. That respondent No.1 approached the petitioners
time and again to do the needful in compliance of compromise decree
dated 13.10.2007, Annexure P-5. That respondent No.1 is owner in
possession of the property in question since 2.7.1994 and he had
stored certain construction material therein but all the accused
committed theft of said construction material by entering into
conspiracy with petitioner No.4 Shinder Singh. That in order to cause
wrongful loss to respondent No.1, the accused persons sold 10 marlas
out of the property in question to some other person who started
raising construction in the site in dispute. That the accused persons
also started extending threats to respondent No.1 pressurizing him to
relinquish his claim over the property in question or otherwise to face
dire consequences.
3 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
b) Respondent No.1 appeared in the witness box as CW1 and
tendered various documents in his preliminary evidence and on the
basis of the same the learned trial Court passed summoning order
Annexure P-13.
c) The petitioners being aggrieved of complaint Annexure P-9 and
summoning order Annexure P-13 have filed the present petition.
The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the main
allegations against the petitioners are that they committed breach of
terms and conditions of compromise deed, Annexure P-1, dated
17.09.2007, which is bearing signatures of petitioners No.1 to 3 and
petitioner No.5. The counsel for the petitioners apprised the Court
that petitioner No.5 has already died. The counsel has further
contended that pith and substance of the allegations made in the
impugned complaint are that proposed vendors and petitioner No.1
have committed breach of promise/contract. The counsel for the
petitioners has further submitted that in case there is any alleged
breach of contract, respondent No.1 could seek civil remedy with
regard to the same by filing a civil suit. The counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the dispute between the parties is of
civil in nature, to which the respondent No.1 is trying to give
criminal texture. The counsel for the petitioners has further
contended that in the similar circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme
Court quashed criminal proceedings in Criminal Appeal having
4 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
SLP Criminal-5866-2022 decided on 30.1.2023 Usha Chakraborty
and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr., with observation that
the attempt was made by the complainant therein to give a cloak of
criminal offence to a civil dispute.
The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that
admittedly respondent No.1 and other members of his family filed
suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to
sell dated 2.7.1994 and during the pendency of the said civil suit,
compromise (Annexure P-1) was effected between the parties, which
was supported by site plan (Annexure P-2) and the Court of Civil
Judge, Amritsar passed decree on the basis of said compromise vide
judgment and decree dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P-5). The counsel
for the petitioners has further contended that as per compromise deed
(Annexure P-1), there were reciprocal obligations on both the parties
and one of the said obligation which was cast on the complainant
party was to remove construction from area measuring 17 kanals 14
marlas within a period of 1 month and to handover its possession to
the original owners. That however the respondent No.1 failed to do
so within a stipulated period and thus failed to adhere to the terms
and conditions of compromise (Annexure P-1) and rather respondent
No.1 filed an application (Annexure P-6) for execution of decree,
wherein the objections (Annexure P-7) were raised by the petitioners
and during the pendency of the said execution application, the
5 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
impugned complaint was filed by respondent No.1 without disclosing
the fact regarding pendency of the said execution proceedings. The
counsel for the petitioners has further contended that non-disclosure
and suppressing of aforesaid relevant and material facts with view to
procure impugned summoning order (Annexure P-13), amounts to
fraud on the Court by respondent No.1 and this being so, the entire
criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of complaint, Annexure P-
9, deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in MCD vs. State of Delhi and Anr. (2005)4 SCC
605.
The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that
respondent No.1 has failed to make out prima facie case under
Sections 420, 506 and 120-B IPC. The counsel for the petitioners
further submits that in the instant case, respondent No.1 is unable to
show that the petitioners were having fraudulent or dishonest
intention, from the very beginning at the time of making promise, to
induce or deceive the complainant party. The counsel for the
petitioners has further submitted that as has been argued earlier the
dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and as such, criminal
prosecution for the alleged offence under Section 420 IPC is abuse of
process of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.
Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa Bee and Anr. (2007)13 SCC 107. The
6 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
counsel for the petitioners has further contended that so far as offence
under Sections 379/380 IPC is concerned, no summoning order was
passed by the learned trial Court with regard to the alleged offence of
theft. The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that with
regard to offence under Section 506 IPC, there are no specific
allegations in the complaint as to when and by whom the alleged
threat was given. That mere allegation that the accused party
abused/threatened respondent No.1 does not satisfy the ingredients of
offence under Section 506 IPC. In this regard the counsel for the
petitioners has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2019)14 SCC
207. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that as no
substantive offence has been committed by the petitioners, their
prosecution under Section 120-B IPC is not sustainable.
The counsel for the petitioners while challenging the
summoning order (Annexure P-13) submits that the same was passed
by the learned trial Court in a mechanical manner without application
of mind. That the petitioners No.1, 2, 3 and 5 were residents of
Chandigarh, but the learned trial Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Amritsar passed order Annexure P-13 without following the
proper procedure as prescribed in Section 202 Cr.P.C. which mandate
the Magistrate, to postpone the issuance of process so as to inquire
into the case himself or direct an investigation by Police Officer, in a
7 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area of its
jurisdiction. The counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on
ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1446-2021 decided on 3.12.2021, Sunil Todi and Ors. Vs. State
of Gujarat and Anr., has further submitted that the provision of
Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and on this sole ground the
summoning order deserves to be set aside.
The counsel for the petitioners while referring to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Food Ltd. and
Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998)5 SCC 749, has
contended that the Magistrate has to carefully appraise the evidence
brought on record and should apply his mind to the facts of the case
before passing the summoning order, which is a serious matter. The
counsel for the petitioners while referring to the guidelines laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 SCC (Criminal) 426, has contended that the continuance of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of complaint
(Annexure P-9) would amount to abuse of process of law as well that
of Court.
On the contrary, the counsel for respondent No.1 while
supporting complaint (Annexure P-9) and summoning order
(Annexure P-13) has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity
in Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-13 as well. The counsel for
8 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
respondent No.1 has submitted that initially petitioners No.2, 3 and 5
entered into an agreement to sell their land measuring 106 kanals 19
marlas for valuable consideration of Rs.1,06,95,000/- with
respondent No.1 on 2.7.1994 and out of said land proposed vendors
transferred land measuring 17 kanals 14 marlas in name of
respondent No.1 in the very beginning and the proposed vendors
received the entire sale consideration worth Rs.1,06,95,000/-. It is
further contended that the proposed vendors failed to execute the sale
deed with regard to remaining area of land and then respondent No.1,
his wife and daughter filed suit for specific performance of agreement
to sell dated 2.7.1994 and during the pendency of the civil suit,
compromise was effected between the parties and the compromise
deed is dated 17.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter the parties got
recorded their statements in the Court concerned and resultantly,
compromise decree (Annexure P-5) was passed by the Civil Court on
13.10.2007. The counsel for respondent No.1 has further contended
that after the passing of the said decree the petitioners No.1 to 3 and 5
failed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1/his
nominee as per compromise deed (Annexure P-1). On this
respondent No.1 filed execution application (Annexure P-6) and even
the same was resisted by the aforesaid petitioners, who filed
objection petition (Annexure P-7) and reply to the same filed by
respondent No.1 is (Annexure P-8). The counsel for respondent No.1
9 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 10 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
has further contended that sum and substance of the aforesaid
circumstances clearly shows that the petitioners entered into
compromise (Annexure P-1) with mala fide intention, in order to
cheat respondent No.1 and it is not only simple breach of
compromise, dishonest intention of petitioners, from very beginning
is apparent from documents and the trial Court rightly summoned the
petitioners under Section 420 IPC.
The counsel for respondent No.1 has further contended
that there is also enough evidence in order to make out prima facie
case against the petitioners under Section 506 IPC. That the
complainant while appearing in the witness box as CW-1 specifically
deposed that the petitioners extended threats to him and further
threatened to cause harm to his property and person.
The counsel respondent No.1 has further contended that
the petitioners before entering into agreement to sell dated 2.7.1994
and compromise (Annexure P-1) hatched conspiracy to deceive the
respondent No.1 by causing wrongful loss to him and thus are rightly
summoned under Section 120-B IPC.
The counsel for respondent No.1 has further submitted
that the summoning order passed by the Magistrate is an order of
intermediary nature, against which aggrieved party has remedy of
revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. but in the instant case no such
remedy has been availed by the petitioners. The counsel for
10 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 11 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
respondent No.1 has further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Vijay Dhanuka Etc. vs. Najima Mamtaj Etc., 2015(1)
SCC(Criminal) 479, has held that word 'shall' inserted in Section
202 Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 23.06.2006 is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes
taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be
directory in nature. The counsel for respondent No.1 has further
contended that in the instant case, learned Magistrate examined the
complainant on oath and only thereafter the summoning order was
passed, so it amounts to inquiry as per provision of Section 202
Cr.P.C.
The counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has
further contended that there was no concealment of material facts
from the Court by respondent No.1 at the time of filing of complaint
(Annexure P-9). The counsel for respondent No.1 has further
contended that at the stage of summoning the accused, the only duty
of learned Magistrate is to find out whether prima facie case has been
made out for summoning the accused persons and at that stage the
Court is not required to consider the defence version nor is required
to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence placed on record.
In this regard, counsel for respondent No.1 brought to notice the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak
Gupta and Ors., 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 32. The counsel for
respondent No.1 also placed reliance on Shyamal Kanti Goswami
11 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 12 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
and Anr. Vs. Ashim Mukherji, 2014(1) RCR(Criminal)92, wherein
Kolkata High Court held that at the stage of Section 202 Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate is not required to come to a conclusion whether the
prosecution may end in conviction nor he is required to hear the
version of the accused persons and Section 202 Cr.P.C. is in fact an
enabling provision so as to empower the Magistrate to hold an
effective inquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations made in the
complaint for the purpose of arriving at the requisite satisfaction as to
whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused
persons.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties.
The agreement to sell which was executed by petitioner
No.2 Roop Aulakh, petitioner No.3 Harpreet Bhullar and petitioner
No.5 Harcharan Kaur in favour of respondent No.1 is dated 2.7.1994
whereas the complaint in question was filed on 6.9.2012. So there
was undue delay in filing of the complaint with regard to alleged
mala fide intention, if any, was there on the part of the petitioners, at
the time of execution of said agreement to sell. Admittedly, civil
remedy was availed by respondent No.1 as he filed suit for specific
performance of agreement to sell on 25.06.1998. During the
pendency of the said civil suit compromise was effected between the
parties on 17.9.2007 and compromise deed, Annexure P-1, was
12 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 13 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
executed and on the basis of said compromise deed, the suit for
specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed on 13.10.2007
and the concerned compromise decree is Annexure P-5 which was
passed by the Civil Court. Even thereafter, respondent No.1 resorted
to civil remedy and filed application (Annexure P-6) for execution of
compromise decree, Annexure P-5, on 16.04.2010 against which the
opposite party raised objections and filed objection petition,
Annexure P-7. The criminal complaint, Annexure P-9 was filed by
respondent No.1 after availing all the aforesaid civil remedies.
For sustaining charges under Section 420 IPC, existence
of fraudulent or dishonest intention right at the beginning of
transaction with mens rea must be established. Mere breach of
contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating as has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168.
So far as mala fide intention of the petitioners from the
very beginning i.e. 2.7.1994 is concerned, no such plea was taken by
respondent No.1 at the earliest and the allegations of such mala fide
intention raised for the first time by filing criminal complaint,
Annexure P-9, dated 6.9.2012 which appears to be an afterthought,
are unjustifiable. Even otherwise from the perusal of compromise
deed, Annexure P-1, it appears that out of total land measuring 106
kanals 19 marlas covered under agreement to sell, the
13 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 14 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
petitioners had already transferred/sold land measuring 17 kanals 14
marlas to respondent No.1/his nominee. In the given circumstances
respondent No.1 has prima facie failed to establish that the petitioners
were having dishonest/fraudulent intention since the very beginning
when they entered into an agreement to sell the property in question
with respondent No.1 i.e. on 2.7.1994.
The respondent No.1 has also failed to establish that
even at the time of entering into compromise, Annexure P-1, the
petitioners hatched conspiracy, in order to deceive respondent No.1.
As per compromise deed, Annexure P-1, there were reciprocal
obligations on both the parties and various salient features of
settlement are as under:-
a) "That the defendants have agreed to admit the claim of
the plaintiffs regarding land measuring 62 Kanals 6 marlas,
comprising of Khasra Nos.35R/15(2-0), 16(7-16), 24 min North
(7-19), 25/1(2-6), 25/2(5-14), 36R/21(8-0), 20(5-11), 22(5-11),
37R/2 min North (5-19), 37R/1 min North (3 Kanals 16 marlas
6 sarsais), 38R/5 min North (3 Kanals 16 marlas 6 Sarsais)
and 38R/5 min North (3 Kanals 16 marlas 6 Sarsais), situated
at village Kala Ghanupur, Sub-Urban Tehsil and District
Amritsar, of which the defendants are the absolute owners and
to the decreeing of the suit of the plaintiffs qua said 44 kanals,
13 marlas of land out of 62 kanals 6 marlas of land out of the
14 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 15 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
total land measuring 106 kanals 19 marlas and the defendants
have further agreed to execute and get registered the requisite
sale deed regarding the above mentioned land measuring 44
kanals 13 marals within six months from the decision of the
present suit, the sale consideration in respect whereof having
been already received by the defendants.
b) That as per the compromise arrived at between the
parties, the plaintiffs have relinquished and give up their claim,
if any, whatsoever, regarding the balance suit land measuring
44 kanals 13 marlas bearing khasra Nos.37R/9(7-8), 10(8-0),
38R/6(8-0), 7(8-0), 37R/2 Min South (0-15), 37R/1 Min South
(4 kanals 3 marlas 3 Sarsais), 38R/5 Min South (4 Kanals 3
Marlas 3 Sarsais) 38R/4 Min South (4 Kanals 3 Marlas 3
Sarsais).
c) That as per the compromise, the plaintiffs and/or their
nominees/ vendees shall become the owners in possession of
aforesaid land measuring 62 Kanals 6 Marlas which has been
shown in blue and yellow colour in the plan Annexure "A"
attached with this compromise and forming part thereof and the
defendants shall remain owners in possession of land
measuring 44 Kanals 13 Marlas above stated, which has been
shown in pink colour in the plan Annexure "A" attached with
this compromise. The plaintiffs and/or their nominees/vendees
15 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 16 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
shall have no title, right or claim whatsoever in the
aforementioned land measuring 44 kanals 13 marlas.
d) That the plaintiffs have undertaken and agreed to
settle/adjust their nominees/vendees who have got pieces of
land out of the already transferred land measuring 17 kanals
14 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.37R/10 Min (4-0), 38R/6/2(3-0),
36R/21(4-0), 37R/2(6-14) which fall in the pink portion which
is to remain exclusively with the defendants as per the
compromise above, and have further undertaken and agreed
with the defendants to settle such nominees/ vendees on the
portion shown in yellow colour or on the portion shown in blue
colour in Annexure "A" attached with the compromise, as per
the plaintiffs own choice, as the transfer in their favour is out
of the joint khata and as such, the same are the transfers of
shares only according to law. It is thus agreed that the plaintiffs
and/or their nominees/vendees shall have no right/claim
whatsoever on the portion shown in pink colour in Annexure
"A" of this compromise.
e. That the plaintiffs have undertaken to remove the
constructions raised by them over the portion of the land
measuring 44 kanals 13 marlas bearing khasra Nos. 37R/9(7-
8), 10(8-0), 38R/6(8-0), 7(8-0), 37R/2 Min South (0-15), 37R/1
Min South (4 kanals 3 marlas 3 Sarsais), 38R/5 Min South (4
16 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 17 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
Kanals 3 Marlas 3 Sarsais) 38R/4 Min South (4 Kanals 3
Marlas 3 Sarsais) shown in pink colour in Annexure "A"
within one month of the decision of the present suit, at their
cost and responsibility.
f. That as per terms of the compromise/settlement, the
plaintiffs have undertaken to settle and adjust their
nominees/vendees Swinder Kaur etc. qua the land measuring
17 Kanals 14 Marlas above stated, over the portion of the land
shown in yellow or the blue portion having fallen to the share
of the plaintiffs forming part of the land measuring 62 kanals 6
marlas above referred as deemed fit by the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs have further undertaken and agreed that in case any
claim/dispute of whatsoever nature is raised by their
nominees/vendees, then in that event, it shall be sole
responsibility of the plaintiffs to defend/oppose and settle the
same at their own costs and responsibility."
It is clear that as per compromise Annexure P-1,
respondent No.1 was also to perform reciprocal promises but as per
petitioners, respondent No.1 failed to do so. In case respondent No.1
has performed his reciprocal obligations, he could execute the
compromise decree, Annexure P-5 with the intervention of the Civil
Court.
17 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 18 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
Further, complaint Annexure P-9 was filed belatedly after
about five years of passing of compromise decree, Annexure P-5. Thus
again making it apparent that respondent No.1 tried to give a flavor of a
criminal offence to the dispute which was of a civil nature.
There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not
in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of
damages. However, the distinction between mere breach of contract and
cheating, which is criminal offence is a fine one. Simple breach of
contract cannot give rise to criminal action for cheating and fraudulent
or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. Even if all
the allegations in the complaint (Annexure P-9), taken at the face value
are considered to be true, the basic essential ingredients of dishonest
intention and cheating are missing.
In the complaint, it has not been disclosed as to when and
in whose presence the petitioners extended threats to complainant to
cause harm to him and his property. In the absence of any such specific
allegations even no offence under Section 506 IPC is made out against
the petitioners. Further, neither the complaint nor the concerned record
apparently indicates commission of offence of criminal conspiracy by
the petitioners.
Admittedly, criminal proceedings are not a shortcut for
other remedies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again
reiterated that there is a growing tendency to convert purely civil
18 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 19 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
disputes into criminal cases, on account of a prevalent impression that
Civil Law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect
the interest of aggrieved parties. There is also an impression that if a
person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution there is
likelihood of imminent settlement. In this regard reliance is placed on
G. Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 707, Indian
Oil Corporation Vs NEPC India Limited and others 2006(3) RCR
(Criminal) 740 and Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of
Uttaranchal and others 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 548. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. State of Karnataka and
others 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 573 has observed that any efforts to
settle civil disputes, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated
and discouraged.
Most recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No.581 of 2023 Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another
decided on 1.3.2023 quashed the FIR which was registered on the basis
of agreement to sell entered by Sarabjit Kaur (appellant therein) in
favour of complainant regarding sale of her property. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court while passing the said judgment observed that the entire
idea seems to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on
the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal
19 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 20 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurize the
parties to settle civil disputes.
The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash FIRs have been stated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in NEPC India Ltd. (supra) formulated guiding principles and
explained the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C to quash criminal complaints. It is settled position that power to
quash FIR/criminal complaint is to be exercised for purpose of
prevention of abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice.
Now reverting back to facts of the present case, even
considering the nature of allegations contained in complaint (Annexure
P-9) this Court is of the view that no case is made out for taking
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 and
120B IPC, against the petitioners.
In view of the above, the initiation of criminal proceedings
by respondent No.1 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Since the
proceedings are required to be quashed on the ground that no offence of
cheating, criminal intimidation or criminal conspiracy is made out
against the petitioners, this Court do not consider it necessary to
adjudicate on the issue of non-compliance of the provision of Section
20 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
2023:PHHC:081450
( 21 )
CRM-M-36355 of 2013
202 Cr.P.C on the ground that the petitioners No.1 to 3 and 5 were
residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed
and complaint, Annexure P-9, and summoning order, Annexure P-13,
dated 15.04.2013 and all the consequential proceedings qua the present
petitioners stand quashed. However, the observations made herein
above have got no bearing on the civil litigation, if any, is pending
between the parties.
Disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any.
( KARAMJIT SINGH)
01.06.2023 JUDGE
P. Chawla
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081450
21 of 21
