KISHORE KUMAR GANGULY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC, the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the order framing charge dated 13-9-2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in the matter of State Vs. Kishore Kumar Ganguly pending before the Court of Mrs. Kiran Thawait, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has framed charge against the applicant of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

(2.) As per case of the prosecution, the applicant had executed an agreement in favour of complainant Mrs. Laxmi Manthani on 8-11-1990 relating to plot No. B-28/7 area 50 ft. x 80 ft. situate at New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur and after obtaining Rs. 50,000/- towards full amount of sale, possession was handed over to the complainant. Sale deed was required to be executed on behalf of the applicant after obtaining necessary permission from the Raipur Development Authority (RDA). Both the parties were reluciant and in the meanwhile, the applicant has given special power of attorney in favour of brother-in-law (clevar) of the complainant for execution of sale deed between 2000 and 2002. The Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed and thereafter, again the applicant assured the complainant for execution of such sale deed. Meanwhile, power of attorney holder, i.e., brother-in-law of complainant Mrs. Laxmi Manthani made application before the RDA for permission to execute sale deed on which he was informed that the applicant has informed the RDA in writing that he is cancelling the power of attorney executed in favour of brother-in-law of the complainant. Finally, in the year 2007, vide registered sale deed the applicant has executed sale deed in favour of one Ashok Jadwani. Since execution of the agreement, the complainant has regularly paid premium and rent of the aforesaid plot. On the aforesaid basis, written complaint was filed before police and after registering FIR and investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. After hearing the parties, the Court below has framed charge against the applicant. Instead of challenging the order impugned before the Revisional Court of first instance, i.e., Sessions Judge, Raipur, the applicant has directly challenged the order impugned before this Court, though revision is maintainable in terms of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC before the High Court.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the order framing charge and copy of charge sheet.