NARAYAN SINGH Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner invokes inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the code") for setting aside of the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ("M.M.") whereby an Application dated 02.03.2012 for dismissal of the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act") was dismissed. Before adverting to the question in controversy between the parties, let me narrate in brief the facts of the case. As per the case of Respondent No. 2, Petitioner Narayan Singh entered into a 'Bayana agreement' dated 07.09.2010 with Mahabir Singh and Partap Singh for the sale of 1/8th share in an agriculture land measuring 87 Bighas and 07 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Jat Khore, Delhi -110039 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,27,16,666/ -. A sum of Rs. 12,27,666/ - was received by the Petitioner (accused before the Trial Court) as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs. 1,14,89,000/ - was to be paid to the accused at the time of registration of the sale deed. According to the case set up in the complaint, Mahabir Singh and Ranbir Singh with the implied approval of the Petitioner entered into an agreement dated 02.02.2011 to sell the land sought to be purchased from the Petitioner to Virender Kumar, his wife Sunita, Ms. Poonam and Ms. Anuradha. It is further case of the Respondent No. 2 that in terms of the agreement dated 07.09.2010, the purchaser, that is, Mahabir Singh and Partap Singh (since deceased) through his son Ranbir Singh was entitled to get sale deed executed either in their names or in the names of their nominees. In the complaint, it was alleged that on 03.03.2011, the Petitioner informed Mahabir Singh and Ranbir Singh, who were the original complainants No. 1 and 3, that the sale transaction in respect of the land in question be completed in favour of their nominees Virender Kumar and others with whom they have entered into an agreement to sell dated 02.02.2011. Petitioner Narayan Singh agreed to the proposal and the time for execution was extended upto 14.03.2011. The Petitioner further requested the vendees (Mahabir Singh and Ranbir Singh) that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs may be paid to him (the Petitioner) which would be adjusted in the total amount payable to him. It is the case of Respondent No. 2 that on 07.03.2011, the Petitioner received further payment of Rs. 47,75,000/ - by way of three cheques for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, Rs. 1,75,000/ - and Rs. 45 lakhs. Out of this, a cheque of Rs. 45 lakhs was issued by the Respondent No. 1 who is son of one of the original purchasers Mahabir Singh. It is averred in the complaint that on 14.03.2011, the Petitioner executed sale deed of the said land in question in favour of Virender Kumar and others and received eight postdated cheques all dated 28.04.2011. On 30.04.2011, the Petitioner presented the aforesaid eight postdated cheques and got credited the entire amount in his account.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the complaint, on 30.04.2011 the Petitioner with Ranbir Singh and Mahabir Singh (complainants No. 1 and 3 in the initial complaint) went to the Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Bawana branch and after proper accounting, he (the Petitioner) issued a postdated cheque No. 021321 dated 06.05.2011 for Rs. 60,00,714/ - in favour of the Respondent No. 1. The cheque on presentation, however, was dishonoured with the remarks "stop payment."

(3.) THE Petitioner's grievance is that it was not permissible to amend a complaint and, therefore, the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the learned M.M. dropping the complainants No. 1 and 3 from the array of parties was illegal. Thus, the Application dated 02.03.2012 preferred by him for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the amendment is not permissible ought to have allowed and consequently the complaint case ought to have been dismissed.