Full Judgment Text
(NON-REPORTABLE)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2023
Sarabjit Kaur …Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab & Anr. …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The Appellant having failed before the High Court has
filed the present appeal. A prayer was made for quashing
of F.I.R. No.430 dated 16.10.2017 under Sections 420, 120-
B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petition
filed before the High Court seeking quashing thereof was
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a plot
Signature Not Verified
measuring 1 (Kanal) on 27.05.2013 with Malkit Kaur, wife
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.03.02
17:24:12 IST
Reason:
of Surender Singh resident of Dhillon Colony, Near
1
Electricity Grid, G.T. Road, Moga, Jagraon, District
Ludhiana, Punjab on 27.05.2013. On the basis thereof
appellant entered into an Agreement to Sell the same to
Sarabjit Kaur wife of Darshan Singh (respondent No.2) on
18.11.2013. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed
as 25.06.2014. It was categorically mentioned in the
Agreement to Sell that at present the vendor was not the
owner of the property. The appellant received a sum of ₹
5,00,000/- as earnest money and the date of registration of
sale deed was fixed as 25.06.2014. The date for execution
of sale deed was extended to 24.12.2014 on receipt of
| ₹ | |
|---|---|
Darshan Singh (complainant/ respondent No.2), son of
Jangir Singh on 30.09.2015 with reference to the same
alleged Agreement to Sell however against property
dealers Manmohan Singh, son of Prakash Singh and Ranjit
Singh alias Billa, son of Pal Singh. In the aforesaid
complaint, reference was made to two other transactions
entered into by Darshan Singh and prayer was that an
| ₹ | |
|---|---|
property dealers.
2
3. The aforesaid complaint was investigated and finally
on 18.05.2016, it was opined that the dispute being civil in
nature, no police action was required. Darshan Singh
made another complaint on 05.10.2016 with the same
allegations without disclosing the fate of his earlier
complaint. Referring to the earlier enquiry made, the
aforesaid complaint was consigned to record on
23.01.2017. Thereafter, another complaint was made by
Darshan Singh against the appellant, Ranjit Singh and
Manmohan Singh. It is on the basis thereof that F.I.R. in
question was registered under Sections 420, 120-B and
506 IPC against the appellant, Manmohan Singh and Ranjit
Singh.
4. The argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellant is that the respondent No.2 who claims himself
to be the husband of vendee had filed two complaints
earlier with the same set of allegations and those were
consigned to record on the basis of the legal opinion
received opining the case to be of civil nature. In the first
such complaint, there were no allegations against the
appellant. In fact the dispute is purely civil in nature. In
case the appellant failed to execute the sale deed for
3
which admittedly the last date fixed was 24.12.2014.
Respondent No.2 could have availed of his appropriate
remedy of specific performance of Agreement to Sell but
no suit was filed. However, third complaint was filed
without disclosing the fate of earlier two complaints. The
F.I.R. in question was registered on the basis of the
complaint filed by respondent No.2 on 15.06.2017 i.e.
nearly three years after the date fixed for execution of sale
deed. The respondent No.2 had never issued any notice
prior to the filing of the compliant with the police seeking
any remedy. A perusal of three complaints filed by
respondent No.2 clearly suggest that from the initial prayer
for return of the amount paid by him, subsequently the
allegations of cheating was made. In the first complaint
while referring to different transactions, the allegation was
only against the property dealers not against the appellant
whereas in subsequent complaint improvement was made
and she was also involved.
5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
chargesheet having been filed, the appellant can raise all
the pleas before the court below. It is not a case for
quashing of the F.I.R.
4
6. Despite service of notice, respondent
No.2/complainant has not appeared.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper book.
8. On the material placed on record by the parties, it is
evident that an Agreement to Sell was executed by the
appellant in favour of the wife of respondent No.2, namely
Sarabjit Kaur for sale of plot measuring 1 (kanal). The
agreement to Sell specifically mentions the fact that
appellant/ the vendor gets entitled to the property on the
basis of the Agreement to Sell executed in her favour by
Malkit Kaur on 27.05.2013. The last date fixed for
registration of sale deed was 25.06.2014 which was
extended to 24.12.2014. There is nothing placed on
record by the complainant or the State to show that
besides filing of the criminal complaint, respondent No.2
had initiated any civil proceedings for execution of sale
deed on the basis of Agreement to Sell or in the alternative
return of the earnest money.
5
9. A perusal of the first complaint made by respondent
No.2 on 30.09.2015 shows that the prayer was made for
return of the amount paid by him with no allegation of
cheating. It was filed only against Manmohan Singh and
Ranjit Singh, the property dealers. Reference in the
aforesaid complaint was made to the Agreement to Sell
executed between the parties. In addition, there was a
reference to two other Agreements to Sell executed in
total. A prayer was made for getting an amount of
₹ 29,39,500/- refunded from the property dealers.
Though, in the aforesaid complaint reference was made to
the Agreement to Sell in question, however there was no
complaint made against the appellant. The aforesaid
complaint was investigated by the Economic Offences
Wing and a report was submitted to the Senior
Superintendent of Police on 22.03.2016. A report was
submitted on the basis of which the legal opinion was
sought from the District Attorney who opined that no
criminal offence was made out and the complainant shall
be at liberty to invoke jurisdiction of the civil court. The
aforesaid opinion was accepted by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural) on 18.5.2016.
6
10. Thereafter, Darshan Singh (respondent No.2) made
another complaint to DIG, Ludhiana on 05.10.2016 which
again was enquired into and a finding that earlier identical
complaint was filed as no criminal offence was made out
and the second complaint was consigned to record. In the
second complaint, there was no reference made to the
earlier complaint filed by Darshan Singh.
11. Still not satisfied as the result of the earlier complaint
was not to the liking of the respondent No.2. He filed
another complaint on 23.01.2017. Thereafter, another
complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 on 15.06.2017
on the basis thereof F.I.R. in question was registered. On
the facts of the case in hand, it is evident that the effort of
respondent No.2 was merely to put pressure on appellant
while involving her in a criminal case to get his money
back whereas there is nothing pleaded that respondent No.
2 that he was ever ready and willing to get the sale deed
registered. There was no effort made by the respondent
No.2 or the vendee in the Agreement to Sell to initiate any
civil proceedings to get the sale deed executed on the
basis of the Agreement to Sell. In fact, the last date fixed
7
for execution of the sale deed even after extension was
24.12.2014.
12. There is nothing on record to suggest that any notice
was issued by the respondent No.2 or the vendee to the
appellant to get the sale deed registered just either before
expiry of the last date fixed for executed of sale deed or
immediately thereafter. No civil proceedings were also
initiate rather the respondent No.2 proceeded only by filing
complaints with the police two of which were earlier filed.
Had there been any civil proceedings initiated, the
question of readiness and willingness of the vendee is also
an aspect to be examined by the Court.
13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up
promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings.
From the facts available on record, it is evident that the
respondent No.2 had improved his case ever since the first
complaint was filed in which there were no allegations
against the appellant rather it was only against the
8
property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that
the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first
complaint, the only request was for return of the amount
paid by the respondent No.2. When the offence was made
out on the basis of the first complaint, the second
complaint was filed with improved version making
allegations against the appellant as well which was not
there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be
to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on
the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The
criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling
scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes.
Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out,
criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in
question on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered was
filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for
registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to
continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.
9
14. Hence, in our opinion the impugned order passed by
the High Court deserves to be set aside. The petition filed
by appellant for quashing of F.I.R. is ordered to be allowed.
As a consequence, F.I.R. No.430 dated 16.10.2017 and all
the subsequent proceedings therewith are ordered to be
quashed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
……………..…………………J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
…………..……………………J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi;
01.03.2023.
10