The main legal point established is that disputes involving fraudulent inducement and breach of contract may be of a civil nature, and the appropriate recourse is to seek specific performance through civil court.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners herein seeking quashing of FIR No.324/2017 registered at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sriganganagar for offences under Sections 420 & 120B IPC.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the misc. petition are noted hereinbelow.

3. The respondent-complainant filed the FIR aforestated through a complaint in the court of ACJM, Sadulshahar in the year 2017 alleging therein that he was a resident of Village Hakmabad, District Sadulshahar. In the year 1993, he started looking out for a piece of agricultural land. He had instructed Nanakram and Bhagirath in this regard. He alleged that when the accused persons came to know of the complainant's plan, they hatched a conspiracy and approached the complainant at his house in Hakmabad with certain property documents and gave him an inducement that they had come to know from Nanakram and Bhagirath regarding the complainant's intent to buy a piece of land. The accused Ramswaroop allegedly told the complainant that Netram owned some land in Chak No.5 NGM Poogal. Netram had expired and that Smt. Harkori was possessing succession certificates etc. It was stated that the accused allegedly gave an allurement to the complainant that Smt. Harkori was in dire need of money for the education of her children and thus, she would sell the land to the complainant at a cheap rate. Relevant title documents were provided to the complainant. In the month of January, 1994, the complainant was shown the land and on 21.01.1994, he gave a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused Ramswaroop and Pana S/o Shri Netram Dhanak in presence of the witnesses Bhagirath, Nanakram and Dharamdas and an agreement was executed in his favour and was got notarized. A power of attorney was also executed in favour of the complainant. The complainant alleged that the accused did not have a genuine intention of transferring the land to him. He gave further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each in the years 1996 and 1998 and Rs.1,25,000/- in the year 2004 to the accused Ramswaroop and Harkori. The complainant was assured that these amounts were being used to pay off the installments of the land and that registered sale deed would be executed as and when the complainant desired. On 16.03.2007, the accused Ramswaroop, Harkori and Jaiveer approached the complainant at Hakmabad pleading that someone in their family had expired and demanded more money. The complainant stated that he had already given significant amount for purchase of the land and hence, a registered sale deed should be executed in his favour. He bluntly refused to give any more money to the accused unless they provide receipts etc. towards clearance of the installments. In the year 2009, the complainant invested money on improving the land and started cultivating the same. In the year 2012, the accused Ramswaroop and Harkori came to Hakmabad on which, the complainant requested them to execute the registered sale deed. However, the accused had developed a fraudulent intention and they demanded more money and threatened that the registered sale deed would be executed only if an additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to them. The complainant convened a Panchayat and an additional amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was paid to Harkori in the month of December, 2012. The complainant went to Pugal and made inquiries on which he came to know that the installments of the land were due and the allotment would be cancelled if the same were not paid. The complainant realized that he had been cheated by the accused persons as, the deceased Netram had other successors as well and accused concealed this important fact while entering into the agreement with the complainant. A panchayat was convened and on saying of the mediators, he paid an additional amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the accused on receiving an assurance that registered sale deed would be executed in his favour. It was alleged in the co