GAJENDRA SINGH SAHANI Vs. JAI PRAKASH NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent herein has filed a private complaint against petitioner-accused under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Magadi alleging thereunder that accused is a resident of New Delhi and was owning agricultural lands bearing Sy. Nos. 123, 125, 129, 131, 150, 151, 155 and 157/2 of Gangenahalli Village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in all measuring 37 acres having purchased the same from the erstwhile owner Sri Lalchand Memorial Charitable Trust under a registered sale deed dated 7-10-1972. It was further alleged that accused who was an Officer of Indian Administrative Services was residing at places far away from Bengaluru and he was unable to manage the properties and as such, he had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant on 5-9-2007. It is further alleged that since accused was unable to look after said properties, he agreed to sell the same to complainant for a total consideration of Rs. 58,80,000/- and an agreement of sale came to be executed by accused in respect of entire extent of 37 acres on 11-7-2007 and pursuant to same revenue entries were changed to name of the complainant insofar as Sy. Nos. 129 and 131 totally measuring 9 acres 32 guntas. It is also alleged by the complainant that accused had executed a registered sale deed dated 10-9-2007 in favour of complainant in respect of 9.32 acres and insofar as remaining extent measuring 27 acres 5 guntas, title deeds could not be executed in favour of complainant on account of there being discrepancy in the entries relating to the revenue records and as such, accused had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant individually in respect of remaining survey numbers and said power of attorney came to be registered before Sub-Registrar, Chandigarh on 5-9-2007. Complainant has further alleged that supplemental agreement also came to be executed and affidavit confirming said transaction was also executed by the accused confirming the agreements executed earlier and also supplemental agreement by receiving full sale consideration and also executing seven (7) Power of Attorneys in favour of complainant which were duly registered in Sub-Registrar's Office.

(2.) Complainant has further alleged that when there was a dispute relating to Sy. Nos. 123 and 125 on account of claim made by one Sri Channegowda who claimed to have filed Form 7-A and as such, complainant was forced to file an appeal before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and on contest, order of Land Tribunal dated 14-5-2003 came to be set aside in Revenue Appeal No. 1085 of 2007. It was also alleged that Sri Manjunath s/o. Sri Channegowda had obtained an order from Revenue Authorities in respect of Sy. No. 123 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas by getting revenue records mutated to his name and challenging the same, appeal has been filed before Assistant Commissioner and said order came to be set aside. Complainant has also alleged that suits filed by accused in O.S. No. 14 of 2009 and O.S. No. 264 of 2010 were compromised through complainant as his Power of Attorney Holder and in fact Power of Attorney had to give up his right to an extent of 1.20 acres in Sy. No. 123 by virtue of compromise decree passed by Civil Court in said suits. He has also alleged that there were civil litigation's pending relating to different Sy. Nos. which complainant had got settled on account of his intervention.

(3.) It is the prime contention of the complainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate that when this was the state of affairs accused was watching all these deliberations which have unfolded and inspite of there being an agreement being executed in favour of the complainant, he had sold 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 151 to one Sri Harpreeth Singh Dhesi, who was also well-aware of the agreements executed in favour of complainant and also General Power of Attorneys executed in favour of complainant's sons and said Harpreeth Singh Deshi is also a witness to the General Power of Attorneys executed by accused in favour of complainant and without cancelling the same, portion of the property had been sold clandestinely with intention to deceive the complainant. He has further alleged that out of eight (8) Sy. Nos. which accused had agreed to sell had executed sale deeds in favour of two Sy. Nos. in favour of complainant and in respect of remaining Sy. Nos. sale deeds had been executed on account of certain proceedings pending before jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. He has further alleged that accused having received full and final sale consideration in respect of entire land which was agreed to be sold and having executed registered General Power of Attorneys in respect of each Sy. No. individually including supplemental agreement and its confirmation thereof, had executed sale deeds in favour of third parties who were also aware of the right possessed by the complainant with an intention to defraud the valuable right of the complainant and with a mala fide and criminal intention which act of the accused is punishable under Sections 405, 415, 417, 418, 420 and 423 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On these grounds, he sought for action being taken against petitioner-accused.