S SURBIR SINGH Vs. MAHENDER KUMAR RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.4.1996 of Shri Sanjay Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in Crl.Case No. 371/92 dropping the proceedings against the respondent.

(2.) The circumstances leading upto the impugned order of the learned Magistrate may be indicated. In 1991, the respondents agreed to sell to the petitioner a plot of land measuring 1150 sq. yards @ Rs. 1125.00 per sq. yard. It is alleged that at the time of the said agreement, the respondent falsely represented to the petitioner that the said plot had been approved by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for commercial use and thus fraudulently induced the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,01,000.00 to them. However, the petitioner refused to pay the balance amount of sale consideration as it was discovered that the said plot was not approved by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for commercial use. On 2.8.1992, the petitioner sent a notice to the respondents demanding refund of money paid under the agreement. On respondents' refusal to pay the amount in question, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 406/420/120-B Indian Penal Code . against the respondents. By the order dated 9.1.1995, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420/120-B Indian Penal Code . and summoned the respondents. After entering the appearance, respondents filed an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping the proceedings on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence. By the impugned order dated 19.4.1996, the learned Magistrate, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala (1992) 1 SCC 217, dropped the proceedings holding that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error as the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings before completion of the trial. In my opinion, the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be repelled. Reference may, in this connection, be made to the following observations of the Apex Court in K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala (1992) 1 SCC 217: