MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned two petitions which have been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of a common FIR bearing FIR No. 702 dated 30.12.2017, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Morinda, District Roopnagar along with all the subsequent proceedings having arisen therefrom.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of these petitions are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint jointly submitted by the respondents No. 2 and 3-complainants/Kulwant Singh and Raj Kumar alleging that the present petitioners and Surinder Kaur, wife of petitioner-Darshan Singh, had approached them making offer to sell land owned by Surinder Kaur in village Nathmalpur by representing that the said land was free from all encumbrances and Surinder Kaur was the absolute owner of the same. They had also shown the said land to the respondents No. 2 and 3 and had also told them that the victims could get this land leased out any person till the date of registration of sale deed. On being induced by the petitioners and co-accused, the victims had entered into an agreement to purchase this land for a sum of Rs. 29,50,000/- per acre. A written agreement was executed by Surinder Kaur in favour of the victims and she received a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on 30.12.2015. However, thereafter, Surinder Kaur and her husband petitioner Darshan Singh started avoiding execution of sale deed. They made the victims enter into another agreement to sell on 31.08.2015 and received another sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- from them while making promise to execute sale deed by 24.09.2015. At the time when the sale deed was to be executed, the victims, however, came to know that Surinder Kaur is not the absolute owner of the land in question and a dispute relating to mutation of the same was pending before the Commissioner, Rupnagar and civil litigation between Surinder Kaur and some other legal heirs of her predecessor, was also pending. By alleging that while fully knowing about these facts, the petitioners and the co-accused concealed the same with intent to cheat the victims, thereby causing wrongful loss of an amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- to them, the victims prayed for registration of FIR.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioners and the accused Surinder Kaur joined investigation and were arrested. Investigation now stands completed and they are facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences. They had moved an application for discharge which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29.07.2025.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-Darshan Singh that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of about two years in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained. He was neither a witness to the agreement to sell nor signatory to any document. He is not beneficiary of the agreement to sell. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour. At the time when the agreement to sell was executed and when the private respondents paid the earnest money, there was no order of stay passed by any Civil Court and accused Surinder Kaur was very much competent to execute agreement to sell qua the land in question which she had inherited from her father on the basis of a Will. As such, no dishonest intention could be attributed to even accused Surinder Kaur, what to talk about having any malafide with him. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC are not at all attracted qua him. The FIR has been lodged to abuse the process of law. There are no chances of the FIR culminating into conviction of the petitioner. It is thus argued that the petition deserves to be allowed and the FIR in question is liable to be quashed.

5. While addressing arguments on