HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Reserved on 16.10.2024 Pronounced on 09.01.2025 ****

Sanjeev Kumar Jain ... Petitioner VS.

State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondents ****

CRM-M-33936-2012 (O&M)

****

Narinder Dhir ... Petitioner VS.

State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate and Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate (CRM-M-33087-2012)

Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocate (CRM-M-33936-2012)

for the petitioner (s)

Mr. Malkiat Singh, DAG Punjab Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). By this order, I shall dispose of the above-cited two criminal misc. petitions which have been preferred against the same FIR got lodged by respondent No.2-Amarjit Singh. For the purpose of order, CRM-M-33087-

2012 is treated as the lead case.

(2). This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR No.65 dated 24.05.2011 (Annexure P8) under Sections 406/120-B IPC (Section 420 IPC added later on), registered at Polie Station Model Town, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the allegations made in the FIR, it was Anil Jain, who was met with the complainant and the agreement to sell has been entered by the complainant with Anil Jain and in fact the petitioner never met with the complainant nor he gave any money to the petitioner or his partner and thus there is no question of any offence under Section 406/420 IPC. Moreover, there is no signature of the petitioner on the alleged agreement to sell between Anil Jain and the complainant whereas he had agreement to sell dated 18.03.2008 from Narinder Dhir and the same was in writing and while entering into an agreement in favour of Anil Jain on 15.07.2008, specific reference with respect to the agreement dated 18.03.2008 was also made in the same.

(4). It is urged that there is nothing on record to even remotely show that there was any mens rea between the petitioner and Anil Jain. It is submitted that in village Ayali Kalan, no consolidation had taken place which is the reason for rise in civil disputes and in fact, the complainant is in collusion with other persons after having sold his part of the land to Narinder Dhir (petitioner) which is on the road and is trying his best to get the said land back. Further, it is argued that as per the statement of Gurpreet Singh, the complainant Amarjit Singh entered into agreement with Dinesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar to sell land in question and the money was given by the complainant to Anil Jain and not to the petitioner.

(5). Learned State counsel submits that the offences attributed are non-compoundable and the final report under Section 173 CrPC has already been filed on 20.12.2011 against the petitioner(s). In the additional affidavit dated 27.01.2023 filed by Jasroop Kaur Batth, IPS, ACP, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, it has been averred that there are specific allegations that the petitioner – Narinder Dhir and Sanjeev Kumar Jain connived with each other and allured the complainant to purchase the said property from his co-accused Anil Jain with an assurance to get the sale deed executed from Narinder Dhir knowing full well that Narinder Dhir-petitioner has already been restrained by the Civil Court vide order dated 29.04.2009 from selling this property, therefore, sufficient evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence.

(6). Notice of motion was issued on 19.10.2012 and the trial court was directed to adjourn the hearing beyond that date. Umpteen adjournments were sought on behalf of the parties until 19.01.2017, when a Coordinate Bench took cognizance of the interim order in favour of the petitioner(s) and since it was informed that the parties are likely for amicably settlement, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. There also, t