RAM CHANDRA Vs. SOORAJ SRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, who filed a complaint under Ss. 420 and 109 Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties, compromise dated 7 -7 -1979 (Annexures "3" and "4") and another order dated 30 -8 -1980 of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in revision, quashing the order dated 8 -2 -1980 of the Magistrate, summoning the opposite parties (Annexure "6") be all quashed and the order dated 8 -2 -1980 of the Magistrate be given effect to.

(2.) It is urged that opposite party No. 2, being the successor and daughter of late Lakhan, executed a registered sale -deed dated 2 -3 -1973 in favour of seven persons, namely, (1) Brijlal, (2) Sobran, (3) Ram Bharose, (4) Ganga Sahai, (5) Sobran s/o Darbari Lal, (6) Het Ram and (7) Ram Sewak receiving a consideration of Rs. 20,000/ -. According to the applicants, in mutation proceedings opposite party No. 1 moved an application that she was not daughter of late Lakhan, but one of Chittar, hence names of vendees could not be mutated. It is, further, alleged that she professed herself to be the Bhumidhar of the land involved and also applied for the acquisition of Bhumidhari rights, depositing' the requisite amount before the execution of the sale -deed, as to thereby induce the vendees to pay the sum of Rs. 20,000/ - as consideration , but later applied that the amount deposited by her for acquiring Bhumidhari rights may be returned.

(3.) What transpired was that one of the vendees, namely, Ram Sewak son of Darbari Lal, filed a complaint under Sec. 420, Indian Penal Code on 2 -3 -73 against the opposite parties registered as case No. 119 of 1973. The Munsif Magistrate passed an order of discharge on 16 -6 -75, but the learned Sessions Judge allowing the complainant's revision vide its order dated 26 -8 -75 remanded the case to the trial court and the matter then came before this Court in a criminal revision. Vide judgment dated 6 -12 -1978 (Annexure "2"), this Court allowed the revision of some of the accused persons, namely, Pati Ram, Holasi, Panchi and Nawab, holding that the case should not have been remanded for their trial, as it would necessarily result in their harassment. It was held that Smt. Suraj Shri, present opposite party No. 1, and Munshi Lal, present opposite party No. 2, deserved to be tried and the remand order concerning them was good. This would mean that by the final order in revision, the order of discharge against the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 became final, but a prima facie case against opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 was found to be established and the direction for their trial given by the Sessions Judge became final.