IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 20.04.2026 Hemant Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar ........Petitioner VERSUS Rajiv Kumar and another .........Respondents CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present Mr.S.S.Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

Mr.Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana for respondent no.2.

***

SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of impugned Criminal Complaint No.464-1 of 2014 under Section 420 IPC (Annexure P-4), impugned summoning order dated 18.11.2015 (Annexure P-5), passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, as well as impugned judgment dated 01.09.2017 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, vide which the summoning order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent, Rajiv Kumar filed a complaint, that on 17.04.2014, the accused/petitioner approached him to sell a house situated in Darjiyan Gali, Jind, claiming that the property was free from any litigation and was in his possession. Relying on this assurance, the complainant/respondent and his brother agreed to ₹ ₹

purchase the house for 90 lakh and paid 15 lakh as earnest money on 19.04.2014. Subsequently, the complainant/respondent discovered that an appeal against judgment and decree dated 06.10.2012, wherein ownership of the house was under challenge was sub judice. One person namely Hari Parkash was found to be in possession, claiming himself to be a tenant of subject matter property. The complainant/respondent No.1 then sent a legal notice seeking refund of the earnest money, but the petitioner refused and threatened to forfeit the amount. Alleging cheating, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 420 IPC. After examining himself and three other witnesses in preliminary evidence, evidence of the complainant was closed. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 18.11.2025 summoned the accused to face trial under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, vide order dated 01.09.2017 (Annexure P- 7). Aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders passed by learned trial Court and learned Revisional/Appellate Court as well as the complaint filed by the respondent No.1, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner became owner of the property in dispute by virtue of a judgment and decree dated 26.07.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.435 titled as Hemant vs. Smt. Shanti; that later on, the entry regarding the ownership was also incorporated in the record of the Municipal Committee, Jind; that the property in dispute is situated in Jind and one Om Parkash Rao, in the year 2006, filed a civil suit at Charkhi Dadri, challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 26.07.1995; that said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.10.2012 (Annexure P8), which was upheld by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure P1). Further RSA No.1970 of 2016 was also dismissed by this Court on 08.08.2016.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has entered into an agreement to sell the part of such property with the complainant/respondent No.1 vide Agreement to Sell dated 19.04.2014; that the impugned complaint has been filed on the premise that the petitioner is not in a position to get the sale deed executed on the basis of the Agreement to Sell whereas there was no legal impediment for registration of the sale deed; that even today, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell dated 19.04.2014 and is ready to execute the sale deed; that the summoning order dated 18.11.2015 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Addl. Chief Judi