##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.8257 of 2019 Reserved on:-02.04.2026

Pronounced on:-06.04.2026 Uploaded on:- 07.04.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

SURAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER …Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Argued by:- Dr. Anmil Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pratham Sethi, Mr. Souravdeep Singh and

Ms. Surekha, Advocates, for the petitioners.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. G.S. Punia, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.102 dated 28.10.2017 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, along with all consequential proceedings

arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.8257 of 2019 -2-

was submitted by Paramvir Singh to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, alleging that the present petitioners along-with one Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha, a property dealer, induced the complainant and his associate Pritam Singh to invest money in a proposed land deal. It was alleged that the accused persons represented that they had entered into an agreement to purchase certain land and persuaded the complainant to become a partner in the said transaction. Relying upon the representations made by the accused persons and believing the deal to be genuine and profitable, the complainant allegedly paid an amount of ₹18 lakhs as earnest money and thereafter, an additional sum of ₹10,80,000/- in

connection with the said agreement to sell.

3. It was, further, alleged that the accused persons had shown the complainant certain revenue documents (Fard) in respect of the land and assured that the sale deed would be executed in due course. However, when the complainant later made inquiries, it allegedly came to light that the land in question did not exist in the manner represented and that incorrect particulars had been furnished by the accused persons. The complainant, further, alleged that the documents shown to him were fabricated and that the accused persons had dishonestly induced him to part with the money. Upon confronting the accused and demanding return of the amount, they

allegedly refused and also extended threats to the complainant.

4. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR No.102 dated 28.10.2017 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC was registered at

Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.8257 of 2019 -3-

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the present FIR is false, fabricated and has been registered only to pressurize the petitioners in a dispute which is essentially of civil nature. It is submitted that initially, Sayyed Mohammad Muslim had entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.07.2009 with the original owners of the land and thereafter, entered into another agreement dated 10.08.2009 with petitioner No.2 Mandeep Singh, in pursuance of which a substantial amount was paid as earnest money. It is, further, submitted that when the said transaction could not materialize, Sayyed Mohammad Muslim filed a civil suit for specific performance against the original owners before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib. Learned counsel, further, submits that thereafter, on 11.07.2011, petitioner No.2 entered into an agreement with the present complainants, whereby the complainants agreed to invest money in the said property and paid ₹18,00,000/- as earnest money, with an understanding that they w