NARENDER SINGH Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR LAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The respondent No. 1 Rajinder Kumar Lamba (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has filed complaint against the petitioner as well as against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein. This complaint is under Sections 420/406/506 Part-II/448/480 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). It is alleged in this complaint by the complainant that he is a property dealer and deals in the business of sale and purchase of properties from his residence in Paschim Vihar, Delhi. On 27.9.1995, Narender Singh (petitioner herein) and his sister Devinder Kaur (accused No. 2 in the complaint) approached the complainant and offered the property No. 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III consisting of two and a half story building over an area of 792 sq.yds. for sale. They represented that this property was in the name of their father Sahib Singh, who died in September 1991, leaving behind Will dated 20.4.1970 in respect of this property and as per the said Will, the petitioner and Devinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused Nos. 1 & 2') had inherited 2/7th and l/7th share respectively. The petitioner agreed to sell his 2/7th undivided share to the complainant. An agreement to sell dated 27.9.1995 was entered into between the complainant and the petitioner/accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 had also represented that this property was free from all encumbrances at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 27.9.1995. However, subsequently the accused Nos. 1 & 2 neither handed over the peaceful and lawful possession of the property in question to the complainant nor returned his earnest money and rather they handed over the possession of the property in question to Shri Sudhir Kr. Gupta, a partner of M/s. SS Associates (accused No. 3 and respondent No. 2 in this petition). On the basis of these allegations, the complaint has been filed.

(2.) The complainant examined, at pre-summoning stage, three witnesses, namely, the complainant himself as CW-1, Mr. Ashok Kumar Nanda as CW-2 and Mr. Preet Pal Singh as CW-3. On the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint and after going through the evidence, the learned MM vide order dated 8.8.2000 was pleased to summon all the three accused observing that they were prima facie liable to be proceeded against for the offences under Sections 420/406/506 Part-II/448/480 read with Section 120-B IPC.

(3.) Accused No. 1, after receiving the summons, filed application for dropping him from the proceedings. The learned MM dismissed this application vide order dated 12,9.2002. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the learned ASJ, Delhi. The revisional court partly allowed the revision petition vide order dated 1.4.2004confining the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC only and discharged the accused persons for the offence under Sections 406/448/380/120-B IPC. Still feeling aggrieved, order dated 1.4.2004 is challenged by the petitioner by means of the present petition.