CRM-M/5698/2017 of R.K.PATNAIK Vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 21 July 2026

(132) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-5698-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 DR. R.K. PATNAIK ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. CRM-26811-2026 The present application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner seeking revival of the main petition, i.e., CRM-M-5698-2017, in view of the specific liberty granted to the applicant/petitioner vide order dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure X). Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. CRM-M-5698-2017 The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the order dated 05.06.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala and order dated 19.12.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the JMIC, Ambala whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner JITESH LAL

under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC has been dismissed without summoning the respondent Nos.2 to 5 as accused.

2. The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the accused/respondents (hereinafter known as the respondents) had offered to sell their land measuring 42 Kanals 16 Marlas to the complainant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’). An agreement to sell dated 13.8.2011 was entered into between the parties. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.48,50,000/- per acre i.e. 8 Kanals. At the time of entering into the agreement to sell, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the accused. It is averred that some part of the land which was the subject matter of the agreement to sell dated 13.8.2011 had already been mortgaged by respondent No.2/accused no.1 with PNB much prior to the execution of the agreement to sell and as such the sale deed could not be executed. This fact was not disclosed by the accused to the petitioner at the time of the agreement to sell dated 13.8.2011. The accused had refused to return back the money to the petitioner. Hence, the necessity arose to file the complaint.

3. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined Avinash Kumar as CW1 and himself as CW2. The petitioner also placed on record some documents including agreement to sell etc.

4. Based on the evidence led, the complaint came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the JMIC, Ambala. The relevant extract of the said order is as under:- “5.The facts of the case suggest that the matter is civil in nature and criminal proceedings are not to be taken as a short cut of JITESH LAL

other remedies available in law. In a case titled as “Rajnish Lathar Vs. State of Haryana” reported in 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) page-801, P&H, the brief facts were that the accused had taken loan against hypothecation of the plant and machinery but could not repay the loan due to losses suffered by him. The accused, however, removed the hypothecated machinery/stocks for making the payment. The Hon’ble Court while quashing the FIR held that in such circumstances, no offence is made out under Sections 406 & 420 IPC and also that such transaction only gives rise to a civil liability.

6. The above mentioned authority is fully applicable to the facts of this case also. The complainant at the most could have filed a suit for specific performance of contract or for recovery before the civil court in case he had any genuine cause of action to proceed against the accused. Therefore, in such circumstances it can be safely said that the complainant had a civil remedy for specific performance of the agreement to sell or recovery, in case any such agreement was entered into between the parties and could not have set the criminal law into motion. In fact, as per the contents of para no.5 of the complaint, the complainant has already filed a suit for declaration for cancellation of agreement and for Mandatory Injunction seeking directions to the accused to return the earnest money.”

5. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala and the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.12.2016 (Annexure P-5). The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under:- “4. I have considered rival contentions put forth by counsel for revisionist and have perused the trial court record meticulously. After thorough examination, it is observed that there was an JITESH LAL

agreement to sell of land measuring 42K-16M for valuable consideration between parties by dint of agreement to sell EX.C5 on payment of earnest money of Rs.30 lakh and sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.04.2012. This agreement to sell EX.C5 revealed that total land measuring 42K-16M was free from all encumbrarices, but respondent no.2 had mortgaged piece of land measuring 16K-0M, out of land 42K-16M by dint of mortgage deed no.11732 dated 24.04.2006 in favour of Punjab National Bank, Durga Nagar Branch, Ambala City. It is unquestioned that if land measuring 16K was mortgaged with Punjab National Bank, then it was incumbent upon respondents no.2 to 5 to disclose factual position of mortgaged property while executing agreement to sell EX.C5, but this relevant fact was not mentioned is the agreement to sell and further, respondent no 2 did not redeem the mortgaged property on payment of debt from bank. It is however admitted fact that complainant has already exhausted civil remedy on the basis of agreement by filing civil suit which is pending adjudication for final argument.

5. It is worth mentioning here that complainant was agreed to purchase land measuring 42K-16M at the rate of Rs. 48,50,000/- per acre (8 kanal) and amount of loan against mortgaged property as per mortgage deed was only Rs 4,50,000/- as per document EX.C7 and so, if complainant was interested to purchase the land under agreement on payment of huge balance amount, then meager amount of debt could easily be deposited directly in the account of bank before execution of sale deed and so, mere nondisclosure of mortgaged property would not attract mensrea or dishonest act like cheating or criminal breach of trust at the behest of respondents no.2 to 5, because amount of mortgaged land was on very lesser side as compared to amount involved in the agreement to sell and in JITESH LAL

that scenario, amount of debt could be deposited in the bank for redemption of mortgaged property. However, complainant- revisionist had instituted civil suit for declaration seeking cancellation of agreement with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, directing respondents no.2 to 5 to return his earnest money, which itself show that complainant was not interested to pay balance sale consideration amount as involved in the agreement to sell.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once there was a patently erroneous averment in the agreement to sell that the land was free from encumbrances though part of it had been mortgaged, the complaint ought not to have been dismissed and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 ought to have been summoned to face Trial under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC. He therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 be summoned to face trial in accordance with law.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Though, wrong averments have been made in the agreement to sell that the land was free from encumbrances but the loan of Rs.4.5 lakhs is a miniscule part of the total sale consideration and if the petitioner wanted, he could have very well have deposited the said amount with the bank directly before execution of the sale deed. In fact, the petitioner filed a suit seeking cancellation of the agreement to sell with consequent relief of mandatory injunction seeking issuance of directions to the accused to refund his earnest money. It goes to show that the petitioner was not interested in paying the JITESH LAL

balance amount under the agreement to sell else he would have filed a suit for specific performance.

9. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the civil suit has been dismissed and an appeal against the said suit has also been dismissed though a RSA is stated to be pending adjudication before this Court.

10. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 21.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No0 JITESH LAL