IMPORTANT POINT
Inherent jurisdiction-Powers are exceptional in natural can be sparingly invoked.
Bar on taking cognizance-Agreement to sell entered 16 year back-FIR under Section 420 IPC after 16 years; quashed.

Surya Kant, J.

1. - In this petition under sec. 438 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner initially sought pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No.11 dated 12.1.2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station ellanabad, District Sirsa. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case which glaringly disclose the exercise of powers under Sec.156 (3) Cr. P. C. in a mechanical manner, the inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. , has been suo motu invoked so as to quash the FIR as also the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts may be briefly noticed.

3. A complaint dated 3.1.2007 was instituted under Sec.156 (3) Cr. P. C. , inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had approached the complainant and his brothers to purchase the petitioners agricultural land measuring 19 kanal 8 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village kunthla; the complainant and his brothers agreed to purchase the said land @ Rs.36,000 per acre, therefore, an agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 10.10.1990; the petitioner, firstly, received rs.22,000 as earnest money and thereafter balance sale consideration of Rs.65,300 was also received by him on 12.12.1990; the sale-deed was to be executed on 17.12.1990; the petitioner, however, did not execute the sale-deed in favour of the complainant and his brothers and put off the matter on one pretext or the other; the petitioner, however, became greedy and has now sold the said land to Smt. Shanti Devi, w/o Inder Singh, and has executed a sale-deed in her favour and that since the subject land has been sold by the petitioner and purchased by Smt. Shanti Devi knowing fully well that the complainant and his brothers had already purchased the same, both of them were guilty of committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate invoked his powers under sub-section (3) of sec. 156 and ordered investigation into the above quoted complaint.

5. The police, accordingly swung into action and registered the FIR in question on 12.1.2007 and made a move to arrest the petitioner, forcing him to rush to the learned additional Sessions Judge at Sirsa for grant of anticipatory bail which was, however, declined to him vide order dated 8.2.2007 after observing that since, as per the allegations, the petitioner had executed the sale-deed in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi despite receiving full sale consideration from the complainant and his brother, "it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. "

6. At the time of preliminary hearing, this court took notice of the fact that even as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the alleged agreement to sell was executed on 10.10.1990 and in terms thereof the saledeed was to be executed on 17.12.1990. However, no civil suit for specific performance was ever filed by the complainant nor did he take any other legal action for return of the alleged earnest/advance money paid by him to the petitioner in the year 1990. Even a legal notice was never ever served by him upon the petitioner. He, however, suddenly approached the learned Judicial Magistrate under Sec.156 (3) Cr. P. C. after a period of more than 16 years and got the FIR registered. Show cause notice was accordingly issued to the complainant to explain as to how criminal proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner at this belated stage. The complainant was also called upon to explain as to why the FIR in question which prima facie, was an abuse of process of court, be not struck down at the threshold.

7. On a specific query by the Court, learned counsel for the complainant could not refute the fact that after the expiry of the date of execution of the sale-deed dated 17.12.1990, no legal action was ever taken by the complainant against the petitioner till the complaint dated 3.1.2007 was filed under Sec.156 (3) Cr. P. C. On the asking of the Court, learned State counsel, on the basis of the i