The court ruled that civil disputes should not be framed as criminal charges, emphasizing that differing legal remedies must be pursued according to the nature of the dispute.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 200 dated 14.11.2013 under Section 420 & 120B IPC registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereto i.e., Charge sheet dated 07.06.2014 (Annexure P-13), order dated 09.10.2014 (Annexure P-14) passed by learned CJM Gurdaspur for framing of charges under Section 420 IPC read with Section120B IPC and order dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure P-15) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the revision petition against above said order dated 09.10.2014,was dismissed.

2. Succinct facts as pleaded in the petition. On 03.04.2003, petitioners agreed to sell land on Behrampur Road, Gurdaspur to respondent No.2 at Rs. 37,50,000/- per acre, receiving Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed deadline extended to 27.10.2004, but respondent No.2 didn't show up, claiming he lacked the sale consideration. On 11.11.2004, respondent No.2 sued for specific performance of the agreement, seeking possession of 13 Kanals of the land, and requested an alternative recovery of Rs. 20,00,000/- for alleged breach of contract. During the suit, respondent No.2 delayed proceedings and produced a medical certificate. On 14.01.2005, he claimed he wasn't ready to execute the sale deed due to a revision petition and accused the defendants of refusing to execute different sale deeds. Despite many chances and legal notices, respondent No.2 didn't comply with the court decree. On 14.10.2005, he filed an application for amending the decree, attempting to adjust stamp papers for scribed sale deeds, which was beyond the court's power. All these actions suggest respondent No.2 lacked the full consideration and required fees for the sale deed, leading to this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that it is crystal clear that case of civil nature which has been given the colour of criminality where none exists. He further submits that respondent No.2 under the garb of present FIR is taking a shortcut way, by means of arm-twisting tactics to get relief of civil nature.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel strenuously opposes the prayer made in the petition and submits that in the present case, commission of offence under Sections 420 , 120B IPC is prima facie established against the petitioners.

5. Though respondent No.2 on the previous dates of hearing was represented, but none appears on his behalf today. Same was the position on the last date of hearing. Despite availing various opportunities respondent No.2 has chosen not to file any reply, which is deemingly suggestive that he has no objection in allowing of the present petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The stand taken in Para Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the petition has not been controverted by respondent No.2 and same being apposite is reproduced hereinafter:

"3. That on 11.11.2004, respondent no.2 (plaintiff) filed suit inter alia for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 3.4.2003, in respect of land 13 Kanals out of land measuring 17 Kanals 06 Marlas, on payment of proportionate balance sale price, alleged to be Rs. 48,25,812.50 or as determined by the Ld. Court. Respondent no.2 also made alternative prayer in the plaint for recovery of Rs. 20 lacs i.e. Rs. 10 lacs towards return of the advance money and Rs. 10 lacs as stipulated damages for alleged breach of contract. It was his case that as per the terms and conditions of agreement dated 3.4.2003 defendants (now petitioners) executed sale deed in respect of 3 K 3 M out of land ment