PANKAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the complainant Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of at admission stage itself. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 27.4.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut in complaint case no.518/9 of 2011 (Annexure 8) and judgment and order dated 11.8.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Meerut dismissing criminal revision no.226 of 2011 (Annexure 9).

(2.) THE complaint was filed by respondent no.2 against the petitioners Dr. Pankaj Sharma and Dr. Nirpan Sharma as well as against the co-accused Pawan, Rakesh and Smt. Shakuntala for having committed offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC with the allegations that the complainant was an old lady of 70 years of age and was the recorded tenure holder with transferable rights of plots no.360, 335 situated at village Sisauli, pargana, tehsil and district Meerut. On 6.3.2011, the aforesaid five persons came to her field and were talking about sale of the crop. On inquiry, they disclosed that the land has been purchased by them and they are the owners of the land. The petitioners disclosed that an agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010 was executed in their favour by Smt. Shakuntala for a consideration of Rs.50 lacs and a sum of Rs.30 lacs have been paid by them as earnest money. As soon as the complainant disclosed that she was Shakuntala Sharma and she had not executed any agreement to sell, the petitioner no.1 became angry and he and two of his companions threatened the complainant with death. On inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioners got the agreement to sell executed on 26.10.2010 in their favour by putting up an impostor posing as respondent no.2 and the agreement did not have her photograph. The complainant filed a civil suit and obtained interim order in her favour. After recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the summoning order was passed and the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. Hence this petition.

(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. supported the impugned orders. In (2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases 757 Venkateshwaran and another Versus Singaravel Yarn Traders, the Apex Court had held that disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 Mohammed Ibrahim and others Versus State of Bihar and another, wherein the Apex Court held that if a persons sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, i.e., the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. Learned counsel submits that since the complainant was not a party to the agreement to sell, she cannot file the complaint.