DEVIPUJAK MADHABHAI TULSHIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter was called out twice, Mr Mahendra K Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner was not present. RULE.

(2.) BY way of this Revision Application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the present petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 15. 7. 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Radhanpur in Criminal Inquiry Case No. 10/2007 whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint in exercise of powers under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) HEARD Mr B N Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 2, and Mr V L Thakkar, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr Patel took this court through the complaint as well as the judgment and order passed by the trial court. As far as the complaint is concerned, it is alleged that the respondent No. 2 was having one plot bearing No. 81 situated in survey no. 390 near Masali Road, Radhanpur, District Pathan. It is the case of the petitioner-complainant that as the petitioner was desirous to put up construction of residential house at Radhanpur, the petitioner wanted to purchase the plot. The petitioner came in contact with one Lalabhai who was a broker and dealing in the business of sale/purchase of plots. He was also resident of Radhanpur. The said Lalabhai offered the land of respondent No. 2 to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/ -. After negotiation, the consideration for sale of plot in question was decided at Rs. 1,10,000/ -. It is the case of the complainant that on the same day the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 75,000/- on 2. 12. 2006 to Lalabhai in presence of respondents-accused. On 9. 1. 2007, the remaining amount was paid and the receipt of payment was also issued. Thereafter Lalabhai purchased stamp at Radhanpur for executing the above referred sale transaction in respect of the plot in question. However, before the sale deeds of the plots could be executed the said Lalabhai expired due to heart attack. Thereupon the complainant met the accused persons but they did not execute the sale deeds. Therefore, notice was issued on 14. 7. 2007 by the complainant to the accused persons but no reply was filed. Thereupon it is alleged that accused no. 3 refused to enter into agreement to sale though deceased Lalabhai received the amount and issued receipt. From these allegations, prima facie, it is found that this is purely a dispute of civil nature a no offence is made out under section 406 or under section 420 of IPC.