RUPESH GOYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present criminal misc. application, moved under Section 482 of CrPC, applicants seek to quash the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun as well as the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no.4746 of 2013 B.S. Vohra vs. Shri Rupesh Goyal.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the applicants purchased 174 square metre of land from the respondent no.2 through power of attorney holder Digvijay Singh wherefor sale deed was executed in the office of Sub Registrar, Dehradun on 13.12.2011. After some time, applicants came to the respondent no.2 and requested that he is facing financial problem and that he wants to sale the land. On the request made by the applicants, respondent no.2 agreed to purchase the piece of land on the same sale consideration of Rs. 17.00 Lacs and in this regard respondent no.2 issued three cheques in favour of the petitioner amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively, totaling Rs.16,00,000/-. Respondent no.2 alleged that after receiving the cheque, the applicants did not execute the sale deed and cheated the respondent no.2. Despite repeated requests, when applicants did not agree to mutate the name of respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 sent a notice dated 19.02.2013 through his counsel to the applicants requesting him either to execute the sale deed in his favour or to return the advance money. The notice was served upon the applicants on 19.02.2013. Thereafter, the applicants filed a complaint u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC, which was registered as case no.4746 of 2013 B.S. Bohra vs. Rupesh Goyal. Thereafter the statements of the respondent no.2 were recorded and summons were issued to the applicants. Thereafter, the parties were heard on framing of charges. Learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun, after hearing the parties, held that there are sufficient grounds to frame charge against the applicants under Sections 406 of IPC and passed an order holding that prima facie case is made out against the applicants for framing of charge under Section 406 of IPC and ordered to frame charge accordingly.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material brought on record.