Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
-1-
119 + 266 - 2 cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 01.08.2024
(1)
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M)
Surjit Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and Another ...Respondents
(2)
CRM-M-16645-2022
Charan Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-6737-2020.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-16645-2022.
Mr. Gautam Thapar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Tejinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent No. 2/complainant.
****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
CRM-30127-2024 in CRM-M-6737-2020
This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for placing
on record Agreement dated 23.08.2012 executed between petitioner-Surjit
Singh and respondent No. 2, vide Annexure R-2 and for exempting from
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
filing certified copy of said document.
For the reasons enumerated in application, same is allowed.
Accompanied document Annexure R-2 is taken on record and exemption
from filing certified copy of same is allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CRM stands disposed of.
CRM-M-6737-2020 and CRM-M-16645-2022
1. This order shall dispose of CRM-M-6737-2020 and CRM-M-
16645-2022. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, both these
petitions are being taken up together for consideration and adjudication
arising out of same FIR.
2. Petitioners Surjit Singh and Charan Singh have filed separate
petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 42 dated
05.03.2017, Annexure P-3 (Annexure P-1 in CRM-M-16645-2022), under
Section 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station
Jamalpur, District Ludhiana and order dated 19.10.2019, Annexure P-5
(Annexure P-3 in CRM-M-16645-2022), passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.
For the convenience of this Court, documents mentioned in
CRM-M No. 6737-2020 are referred.
3. Facts of the case are Avtar Singh complainant filed complaint
regarding cheating in sale of plot. As per status report, preliminary enquiry
was conducted by ADCP-4 Ludhiana and after getting opinion of D.A.
(Legal) by DCP, Ludhiana, FIR under Section 420, 120-B of IPC was
registered against both petitioners and Simranjit Kaur. Avtar Singh
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
complainant/respondent No. 2 alleged that he came in contact with Surjit
Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh r/o Rasal Patti Jaito, District Faridkot through
his known Gurbhej Singh. He was told that there was plot measuring 1500
sq. yards out of Khata No. 26/34, Khasra No. 3, Jamabandi for the year
2004-2005 situated in Village Mundiyan Kalan, Abadi Gobind Nagar,
Hadbast No. 179, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. As per record, plot was in
the name of Randhir Singh s/o Lal Singh r/o Village Dhamot, Tehsil Payal,
District Ludhiana and after his death, there was mutation on the basis of
inheritance in favour of Simranjit Kaur widow of Randhir Singh. Simranjit
Kaur had given General Power of Attorney regarding this plot duly attested
by Joint Sub-Registrar Dehlon, District Ludhiana in favour of Charan
Singh. Complainant Avtar Singh on the assurance of Surjit Singh agreed to
purchase plot from Simranjit Kaur widow of Randhir Singh. Gurbhej
Singh, Surjit Singh and Harish Kumar took him along with them and had
shown a vacant plot by alleging that it was owned and possessed by
Simranjit Kaur. On 23.08.2012, Surjit Singh, Simranjit Kaur and Charan
Singh struck a deal regarding said fake plot and received Rs. 45,00,000/-
from complainant on the basis of agreement dated 23.08.2012 and sale
deed was executed on 24.08.2012 after receiving balance of Rs. 8,25,000/-.
Complainant visited the spot for taking possession of plot and it was found
that plot was not in existence on the spot. In-fact by showing some other
plot, sale deed dated 24.08.2012 was got executed and registered for
alleged plot of 1500 Sq. Yards by obtaining total sale consideration of Rs.
53,25,000/-. In this way, aforesaid persons cheated the complainant. With
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
these allegations present FIR was registered.
4. On this complaint, inquiry was conducted and in said inquiry, it
was concluded that Surjit Singh, Simranjit Kaur and Charan Singh
committed offence under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC and inquiry report
was submitted before Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana and after
obtaining legal opinion of D.A. Legal, Ludhiana by the orders of Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, said FIR was registered. On completion
of inquiry, challan was also prepared on 14.06.2017 which was approved
by Deputy D.A./D.A. Prosecution, Ludhiana. Thereafter, intimation was
received that Punjab Government had appointed a Commission in respect
of false cases registered by previous Government where Surjit Singh had
given application regarding false registration of case against him. Thus
challan was to be presented after said inquiry. A letter No. 607 dated
17.07.2017 was also received. After inquiry, cancellation report, Annexure
P-2 (in CRM-M-16645-2022) was prepared and accordingly after getting
approval, was presented in the Court. On presentation of cancellation
report, notice was given to complainant who filed protest petition, not
agreeing with cancellation report. After considering the record, learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide impugned order dated
19.10.2019 (Annexure P-5) treated cancellation report as challan and
accused were ordered to be summoned to face trial under Section 420, 120-
B of IPC. Feeling aggrieved of this order, aforesaid petitions have been
filed by petitioners Surjit Singh and Charan Singh.
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Surjit Singh in CRM-M-6737-
2020 argued that Surjit Singh was son-in-law of Roop Singh who had
entered into agreement to sell regarding 1500 Sq. Yards of land bearing
Khata No. 26/34, Khasra No. 3, Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 situated
in Village Mundiyan Kalan, Abadi Gobind Nagar, Hadbast No. 179, Tehsil
and District Ludhiana. As per agreement, Avtar Singh complainant had
paid sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 45 lacs to petitioner. Later on,
sale deed dated 24.08.2012 was executed regarding the plot in question by
Simranjit Kaur widow of Randhir Singh through her General Power of
Attorney Charan Singh and possession of property was delivered to
purchaser Avtar Singh respondent No. 2. Said Avtar Singh filed application
before SSP, Faridkot alleging fraud on the part of petitioner and others
after a gap of two and a half years. Matter was inquired by Superintendent
of Police (Investigation), Faridkot who gave his detailed report dated
30.11.2015, Annexure P-2 specifically mentioning that no criminal offence
was made out and matter was civil in nature. Contents of FIR clearly
indicate that present petitioner was not owner of property and he was not
competent to sell the same. He had merely executed agreement in favour of
respondent No. 2 Avtar Singh. Finally sale deed was executed by Simranjit
Kaur through her Power of Attorney holder Charan Singh. Avtar Singh was
delivered possession of the plot in question. Thereafter, he had no link with
said property. Respondent No. 2 did not bother about his property and
some unknown person raised construction over that property. Now he
cannot shift the burden on petitioner and others. Thus, petitioner
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
approached Commission constituted by State Government to inquire about
false registration of cases and his case was recommended for cancellation
of FIR. Copy of order dated 27.09.2017 in Complaint No. 192 dated
17.05.2017 is Annexure P-4. In compliance to said recommendation,
cancellation report was submitted. However, without appreciating facts of
case, cancellation report was not accepted and it was treated as challan and
accused were ordered to be summoned to face trial under Section 420, 120-
B of IPC by passing impugned order dated 19.10.2019, which is Annexure
P-5. There was no proper appreciation of facts and role attributed to present
petitioner. The cancellation report was wrongly rejected. It is submitted
that FIR No. 42 dated 05.03.2017, Annexure P-3, under Section 420, 120-B
of IPC, registered at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana along with
order dated 19.10.2019, Annexure P-5, passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana may kindly be quashed, by accepting
present petition.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner Charan Singh in CRM-M-16645-
2022 argued that sale deed was executed way back in the year 2012 and
present FIR has been registered after a long gap of more than two and a
half years. Complainant levelled allegations against him that he while
acting as attorney of Simranjit Kaur executed sale deed dated 24.08.2012
regarding plot which was not existing on the spot. In fact, on the basis of
said sale deed mutation was also sanctioned in favour of complainant party.
At the time of execution of sale deed possession was also delivered.
Respondent No.2 Avtar Singh has never challenged said sale deed by filing
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
any civil suit. There is clear recital in the sale deed that possession was
handed over to purchaser. After passing of so many year complainant
cannot re-agitate that no plot was in existence on the spot. In case
complainant had any grievance, he could have filed a civil suit. To support
his arguments on delay and laches, learned counsel for petitioner relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2011(13) SCC
412, titled "M/s Thermax Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.M. Johny & Ors.".
Relevant para No. 29 runs as under :-
"The entire analysis of the complaints with reference to the principles
enunciated above and the ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read
with Section 34 Indian Penal Code clearly show that there was
inordinate delay and laches, the complaint itself is inherently
improbable contains the flavour of civil nature and taking note of the
closure of earlier three complaints that too after thorough
investigation by the police, we are of the view that the Magistrate
committed a grave error in calling for a report under Section 156(3)
of the Code from the Crime Branch, Pune. In view of those infirmities
and in the light of section 482 of the Code, the High Court ought to
have quashed those proceedings to safeguard the rights of the
appellants. For these reasons, the order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pimpri in CC No. 12 of 2002 on 20.08.2007
and the judgment of the High Court dated 11.01.2008 in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 1622 of 2007 are set aside. The complaint filed by
Respondent No. 1 herein is quashed."
Cancellation report (Annexure P-2) submitted by Investigating
Agency was wrongly ignored since complainant/respondent No. 2 Avtar
Singh did not support the same, without appreciating the facts and
circumstances of case. Therefore, aforesaid FIR dated 16.03.2017 under
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
Section 420- 120-B of IPC (Annexure P-1) registered against Charan Singh
and impugned order dated 19.10.2019 (Annexure P-3) may be quashed by
accepting the present petition.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant Avtar Singh in both petitions vehemently argued that it
is a clear cut case of cheating. He filed reply in both petitions. In fact there
was no plot of 1500 Sq. Yards in existence and by showing some other plot
Surjit Singh executed agreement to sell dated 23.08.2012, which is
Annexure R-2 and on the next date, Charan Singh being Special Power of
Attorney holder of Simranjit Kaur executed registered sale deed dated
24.08.2012 (Annexure P-1 in CRM-M-6737-2020). Since there was no plot
on the spot, complaint was filed and matter was inquired on the basis of
inquiry report and on receiving opinion of D.A. Legal, present FIR was
registered. Respondent No. 2 has been cheated for huge amount by both the
petitioners along with Simranjit Kaur. Cancellation report submitted by
prosecution was contested by respondent No. 2. Learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana rightly treated said cancellation report as
challan and order dated 19.10.2019 does not require any interference. Both
petitions filed by petitioners Surjit Singh and Charan Singh deserve
dismissal.
Learned counsel representing State has not disputed factual
position.
8. I have considered the facts of case and have gone through the
record carefully. It is not disputed that Avtar Singh agreed to purchase land
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
measuring 1500 Sq. Yards bearing Khata No. 26/34, Khasra No. 3,
Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 situated in Village Mundiyan Kalan,
Abadi Gobind Nagar, Hadbast No. 179, Tehsil and District Ludhiana,
which was previously owned by Randhir Singh and after his death it was
inherited by his wife Simranjit Kaur. It is the case of respondent
No.2/complainant Avtar Singh that he was shown a plot of 1500 Sq. Yards
and thereafter, Surjit Singh executed agreement dated 23.08.2012 and
confirmed receipt of Rs. 45 lacs. Copy of said agreement is placed on
record by Avtar Singh respondent No. 2 as Annexure R-2 (in CRM-M-
6737-2020). Recital of this agreement shows that it was confirmed that plot
was owned by Simranjit Kaur and through her Power of Attorney holder
Charan Singh sale deed was to be executed on the same day and possession
of plot was also handed over on the same day to the vendee. There is copy
of registered sale deed Annexure P-1 which shows that as per terms of
agreement dated 23.08.2012 in favour of Avtar Singh respondent No.2, sale
deed was scribed on the same day i.e. 23.08.2012 but it was got registered
on 24.08.2012 at 10:25 AM. Sale deed along with endorsement of
registration is Annexure P-1 in CRM-M-6737-2020. There is recital in the
sale deed that entire sale consideration of Rs. 53,25,000/- was received by
seller. Plot was sold with specific boundaries North-Passage, South-
Neighbour, East-Neighbour and West-Passage. Apart from this, it was
confirmed in sale deed that possession was also delivered to purchaser.
Therefore, execution of sale deed and passing of sale consideration are not
disputed by present petitioners.
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
9. As per status report filed by State, Avtar Singh respondent No. 2
filed complaint dated 27.02.2016, alleging that plot referred in aforesaid
sale deed was not in existence on the spot. Thus, he has been cheated by
petitioners as well as Simranjit Kaur. There is nothing on record to show
that Avtar Singh respondent No. 2 took any action against any of the
petitioner immediately after the execution of sale deed, alleging that plot
was not in existence on the spot. After long gap of more than three years,
respondent No. 2 cannot raise issue of cheating. As per sale deed, he was
sold plot with boundaries. He has failed to explain long silence in filing the
complaint. After execution and registration of Sale Deed dated 24.08.2012
seller, her attorney or Surjit Singh were left with no interest in the property.
In case of encroachment of plot, if any, matter in controversy is essentially
civil in nature. Thus for this reason cancellation report was rightly
recommended.
In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of case, I find
merits in arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the petitioners.
Cancellation report was simply rejected vide impugned order dated
19.10.2019, without appreciating the facts of case. Consequently, FIR No.
42 dated 05.03.2017, registered under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC at
Police Station District Commissionerate, Ludhiana, Punjab and order dated
19.10.2019 rejecting cancellation report and treating it as challan report,
are quashed by accepting petitions i.e. CRM-M-6737-2020 and CRM-M-
16645-2022 preferred by petitioners Surjit Singh and Charan Singh
respectively.
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098522
CRM-M-6737-2020 (O&M) and another connected case
10. Both the petitions are accordingly, allowed.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly as well.
01.08.2024 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
11 of 11
