JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J. - Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is to quash FIR No.75 dated 17.07.2017 registered at Police Station Mehna, District Moga, Punjab under Sections 406 , 420 & 120B IPC.

2. FIR in question (Annexure P4) was lodged on the complaint of Gurpreet Singh (respondent No.3), as per which Nihal Singh (petitioner No.2), the Special Power of Attorney holder of Sarwan Singh, Baldev Singh and Niranjan Singh sons of Sarain Singh, had agreed to sell their land situated in village Talwandi Malian vide an agreement dated 29.04.2013. The said agreement was executed through petitioner No.1 Surinder Pal Singh, who also attested the same. Amount of Rs.10 lakh was transferred in the account of Nihal Singh. It is alleged that later on, another amount of Rs.8 lakh was paid by the complainant from time to time, but despite taking total amount of Rs.18 lakh, neither the sale deed was executed nor the amount was refunded. FIR further reveals that complaint, initially made on 07.06.2016, was sent to Economic Offences Wing, Moga, which recommended the registration of the FIR under Section 420 and 120B IPC. However, opinion of the District Attorney was sought, who opined that no criminal action was made out, as per his report dated 16.01.2017. However, on the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, the FIR was registered.

3. (i) It is contended by ld. counsel that petitioner No.1-Surinder Pal Singh had only facilitated petitioner No.2 to arrive at agreement to sell the land measuring 33 kanal 9 marla approximately, situated at village Talwandi Malian to respondent No.3 at the rate of Rs.25 lakh per acre, vide agreement dated 29.04.2013. Petitioner No.2 received Rs.10 lakh as earnest money. Balance sale consideration was to be paid on 28.06.2013 on the date of execution of the sale deed. As respondent No.3 could not arrange the funds, so as per his request, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 25.07.2013. However, respondent No.3 did not come forward to make balance payment on 25.07.2013 or to get the sale deed executed. Petitioners reminded him several times but respondent No.3 failed to arrange the funds.

(ii) Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.3 never filed any suit for specific performance in respect of the agreement to sell dated 29.04.2013 up to June, 2016 and therefore, petitioner No.2 forfeited the earnest money of respondent No.3 after expiry of the limitation period for registration of the sale deed. After remaining silent for a period of more than 3 years, respondent No.3 made a frivolous complaint on 07.06.2016 to SSP, Moga in which District Attorney gave clear opinion that no criminal case was made out.

(iii) Ld. counsel contends further that as petitioner No.2 had applied for a migration to Canada, and his permanent residency to Canada had been approved, respondent No.3 sensed trouble due to the report of the District Attorney and so, he approached the respectable members of the village to get the matter compromised. Since petitioner No.2 was not in India in the month of 2017, therefore, in order to avoid any kind of legal complications, he agreed to the proposal of the respectables and in order to buy peace, settled to pay an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- to respondent No.3, which was paid through his son. An agreement to that effect was entered into between petitioner No.2 through his son Sukhdeep Singh and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 accepted amount of Rs.5,70,000/- through cheques dated 09.02.2017. Copy of that compromise is Annexure P3 and thereafter, all th