Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Pardeep Gupta - Petitioner
Vs.
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 935 of 2022
Decided On : 18-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anuj Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Adv.

Point of Law: Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 415, 420 and 34 - Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Quash FIR - Specific performance of agreement - Allegation of cheating - Quash FIR and further proceedings in lieu thereof, in view of facts and circumstances of case – Appellant cannot be allowed to go through rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against Appellant and Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still sub-judice - Para 19.
Finding of the Court :
Appellant cannot be allowed to go through rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against Appellant and Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still subjudice - There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against Appellant as neither Complainant had to receive money nor he was in any way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV" in central areas of Ahmedabad - He appears to be totally a stranger to same - Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with principles of law – Court is of considered view that facts of case on face of it are not sufficient to disclose commission of offence under Sections 420 read with Section 34 IPC by petitioner - FIR registered at is ordered to be quashed.
Result: Petition succeeds.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“Quash the impugned FIR No.0072 dated 29.03.2022, Annexure P-9, under Sections 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. and further proceedings in lieu thereof, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts as narrated by the petitioner are that he is a partner in Super Rugs India LLP to the extent of 50%. An agreement to sell the land and structure measuring 9 bighas 10 biswas situate at Baddi, District Solan, H.P. was executed on 05.08.2018 between the partners of Super Rugs India LLP (hereinafter referred to as sellers) with Sh. Ram Chand, Smt. Sudesh Kumari and Sh. Ketan Kumar, all residents of Panchkulla (Haryana) [hereinafter referred to as purchasers]. Total sale consideration was agreed at Rs.3,51,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores and Fifty-One lacs). At the time of execution of the agreement, the purchasers paid a sum of Rs.51 lacs as earnest money to the sellers, out of which a sum of Rs.21 lacs was paid through cheque and Rs.30 lacs was paid in cash. On 31.12.2019, the purchasers paid another sum of Rs.48 lacs in cash to the sellers. It is specifically averred by the petitioner that a sum of Rs.21 lacs received from purchasers through cheque was duly invested by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt and the cash was accepted on the assurance of purchasers that the same would be converted to cheques on signing of a fresh agreement at the time of making application for permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The purchasers had agreed that the statutory permission under Section 118 of the Act ibid would be processed by their CA/agent by 10th of January, 2020.

3. It is further the case of petitioner that despite multiple reminders and requests made to the purchasers for initiating formalities to obtain permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the purchasers failed to discharge their liability. Consequently, the sellers suffered a lot of agony. The amount given in cash by purchasers to the sellers was lying with them without being used. The interest money earned upon the Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs.21 lacs was regularly credited to the account of the purchasers after deduction of TDS.

4. The sellers, lastly, had no option but to invoke Clause No.19 of the agreement and in pursuance thereof a legal notice was issued to purchasers on 01.09.2021. The earnest money was forfeited. Despite all this, sellers had been trying to settle the dispute with the purchasers and were willing to return their money. A meeting between the parties was arranged on 30.10.2021, cancellation agreement was mutually prepared and a bankers’ cheque for Rs.24,25,405/- dated 29.10.2021 favouring the purchasers was prepared. The purchasers, however, backed out. 5. Respondents 2 and 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as complainants) i.e. two of the purchasers, about five months thereafter, lodged a false and frivolous complaint with the Police Station, Baddi, District Solan against sellers which resulted in registration of impugned FIR No.0072 dated 29.3.2022 under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC.

6. A civil suit bearing No. 1449 of 2022, is stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 11.7.2022 against the purchasers at Chandigarh. The purchasers are also stated to have filed a civil suit bearing No. 110 of 2022 before this Court for specific performance of agreement dated 5.8.2018. The subject matter of both above noted suits is alleged to be the civil liabilities arising out of agreement to sell dated 5.8.2018.

7. Petitioner, by way of instant petition, has sought the quashing of FIR No. 72 dated 29.3.2022 registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan on the following grounds:

(i) The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The complaint lacks any allegation of cheating at the time of execution of agreement dated 5.8.2018.

(ii) The f