1 to 4 for land measuring 114 Kanals, 2 Marlas situate in the revenue estate of Mauza Jadali, Tehsil Khanna, Punjab, at the rate of Rs.
1075 of 1996 seeking cancellation setting aside of the decree dated 8.5.1996 passed in favour of respondent Nos.
1 Lakh as Earnest Money from the said respondents.
The said agreement was between Kishori Lal and respondents and according to the terms of the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by 10.6.1989.
1 to 4 against Kishori Lal was decreed in their favour vide Judgment and decree dated 8.5.1996 and in pursuance thereof, the sale has been executed by Kishori Lal in favour of the respondent Nos.
8, Ludhiana alleging forging of the signatures of Kishori Lal on the agreement to sell dated 4.1.1988.
As per the said agreement, the sale was to be executed and registered by 15.06.1989.
However, by that time, the suit filed by the present respondents stood decreed.
4136 4 of 2003 before the High Court for quashing of the FIR No.
Being aggrieved, Kishan Singh, predecessor in interest of the appellants, filed suit No.
The appellants father filed another Suit No.1075/96 for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondents 1 to 4.
144 dated 23.07.2002 and proceeding subsequent thereto, on the ground that appellants had lodged it after losing the civil case and with inordinate delay.
The allegations made in the FIR were substantially similar to the allegations made by the appellants in Civil Suit No.1075/96, which had been decided against them.
54000/ as earnest money.
Subsequently, the appellants preferred RFA No.
The said Civil Suit stood dismissed by the Civil Court vide Judgment and decree dated 10.06.2002 against which, the appellants have preferred Regular First Appeal for short, RFA No.
Hence, this appeal.
81 of 1996 against Kishori Lal for specific performance on 6.2.1996, however, the suit filed by the respondent Nos.
1 to 4 on 17.05.1996.
2488 of 2002 before the High Court, which is still pending.
It is to be numbered that the appellants father Kishan Singh lodged FIR No.144/02 on 23.7.2002 through his attorney Jaswant Singh Mann under Sections 420/323/467/468/471/120 B IPC, against the respondents.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Kishori Lal executed an Agreement to Sell dated 4.1.1988 in favour of Respondent Nos.
The appellants father approached the companyrt after 7 years by filing Suit No.81/1996 for specific performance.
The High Court, vide its Judgment and order dated 13.02.2009, allowed the said application and quashed the FIR on the ground that the appellants companyld number succeed before the Civil Court and findings have been recorded by the Civil Court to the effect that the document i.e. agreement to sell was number forged or fabricated.
1 to 4.
The said suit was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Senior Division , Khanna on 10.6.2002.
As per the terms of the said Agreement dated 4.1.1988, the sale deed was to be executed and registered by 10th June, 1989.
Kishori Lal had received a sum of Rs.
52000/ .
2488/02 on 15.7.2002 against the aforesaid order, and the said appeal is still pending before the Punjab Haryana High Court.
60 of 1989 against Kishori Lal in Civil Court, Ludhiana for specific performance and got an interim relief restraining Kishori Lal to alienate the suit land in favour of anyone else by any manner.
11000/ per bigha.
Kishan Singh, predecessor in interest of the appellants, filed FIR No.144 dated 23.07.2002 under Sections 420/423/467/468/120 B IPC at Police Station Division No.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
Respondent Nos.
Thus, it is evident that the FIR was lodged with the sole intention of harassing the respondents and enmeshing them in long and arduous criminal proceedings.No action was taken till 1996 for number execution of the sale deed.
Findings on factual issues recorded in civil proceedings are binding on criminal proceedings.
The respondents preferred a Criminal Misc.
Kishan Singh, father of the appellants, filed Civil Suit No.
The appellants lodged the aforesaid FIR only after meeting their Waterloo in the Civil Court.
The said land had already been mortgaged with the said respondents for Rs.
This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2009 of the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc.
The case before us relates to a question of the genuineness of the agreement to sell dated 4.1.1988.
As the sale deed was number executed within the said time, suit for specific performance was filed by the other party in 1989 which was decreed in 1996.
1 to 4 filed suit No.
So far as the present appellants are companycerned, agreement to sell dated 22.10.1988 was executed in favour of their father and the sale deed was to be executed by 15.6.1989.
4136 of 2003, wherein the First Information Report for short, FIR dated 23.07.2002 lodged by the appellant under Sections 420/423/467/468/471/120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter called as, IPC has been quashed placing reliance on the decree of Civil Court between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter.
The only question for our companysideration involved in this appeal is as to whether criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court relying upon a finding of Civil Court on an issue involved in criminal proceedings in respect of the same subject matter.
15300/ per bigha and received a sum of Rs.
Kishori Lal entered an Agreement to Sell dated 22.10.1988 with Kishan Singh, predecessor in interest of the appellants, in respect of the same land at the rate of Rs.
