SARABJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 1 
SARABJIT SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2013) 
JULY 1, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing of 
FIR- FIR u/ss. 420, 379, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC-Alleging 
that one of the accused had taken Rs.3,00,0001- from him as C 
consideration pursuant to an agreement to sell a piece of land 
. - In addition, he also implicated the person to whom the 
accused (vendor) had sold the land - During pendency of the 
investigation in FIR, complaint by the vendees of the land 
alleging harassment by police in pursuance of the FIR - After D 
enquiry in the matter Superintendent of Police as well as 
Deputy District Attorney in their separate reports concluded 
that FIR was only to pressurize the vendor and vendees and 
that the first informant had not been able to establish the 
execution of any agreement to sell in his favour - Despite the 
E 
favourable reports, Police report uls.173 Cr.P.C. in the FIR 
for initiation of criminal proceedings against the vendor and 
vendees - Application for quashing of FIR - Allowed by High 
Court - Held: It is a case of no evidence - First informant failed 
to establish his claim - Accusations were without any F 
supporting material - High Court was, therefore, justified in 
quashing the FIR. 
'S' filed a suit against the appeUant tor direction not 
to interfere with his land measuring 61 ,kanals 3 marlas. 
Status quo was granted by the court and the .same 
G 
attained finality. Subsequently, 'S' sold the above-said 
land to respond~nt No.4 and his brother. Thereafter, the 
appellant filed a suit against the vendor 'S', respondent 
No.4 and his brother, and others, praying for specific 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
performance of the deed and for possession. In the suit 
he was not successful in getting any interim order in his 
favour. The appellant lodged FIR u/ss.420, 379, 427, 506, 
148 and 149 IPC, alleging that the vendor received 
Rs.3,00,000/- from him as consideration for agreement to 
B sell. The vendor and the vendees (i.e. respondent No.4 
and his brother) filed application seeking anticipatory 
bail. High Court granted bail. The vendees also filed a 
complaint alleging harassment by Police in furtherance 
of FIR lodged by the appellant. In the enquiry report in 
c the case of complaint by the vendees, it was concluded 
by the Superintendent of Police that the FIR by appellant 
was only to pressurize the vendees and the vendor. 
The vendees approached the High Court, because 
0 
they were repeatedly summoned by the pol.ice authorities 
despite the favourable report. Pursuant to intervention of 
High Court, the matter was placed for consideration 
before Deputy District Attorney, who in his separate 
report reiterated the conclusions already drawn by 
E 
Superintendent of Police. 
Despite the above-mentioned position,· Police gave 
its report (in the FIR lodged by the appellant) before the 
Court to initiate criminal proceedings against the vendor 
and the vendees: However, the said,pr.oceedings were 
F 
restrained by .High Court at the instance of, the vendor 
and the vendees. 
Vendor (Respondent No.4) also filed application, 
seeking quashing of the FIR lodged by the appellant and 
the same was quashed by the High Court. Hence the 
G present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The entire claim of the appellant is based 
H 
SARABJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
3 
on an agreement to sell. The first information report A 
lodged by the appellant did not even disclose the date of 
the aforesaid agreement to sell. According to the 
averments made by the appellant before the High Court, 
and before this Court, it was alleged that the aforesaid 
agreement to sell was executed on 13.3.1992. The High 
8 
Court, while granting interim relief, had taken into 
consideration the fact, that the appellant had not 
enclosed a copy of the alleged agreement to sell. He had 
given no details of the agreement to sell. He did not 
disclose any date of the alleged agreement to sell. He did c 
not even mention the area of land covered by the 
agreement, or the rate at which the land was agreed to 
be purchased. The High Court also noticed that the date 
on which the sale was to be concluded, besides other 
similar issues, had also not been disclosed by the 0 
appellant in his complaint. While recording that the 
aforesaid were important ingredients f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.