SANTDAS Vs. GIRDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri.A.A.Naik, Adv. for the Applicant, Shri.Pankaj Navlani, Adv. for Respondent No.1 and Shri.D.B.Yengal, A.P.P. for State/Respondent No.2.

(2.) By this application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order issuing process against the applicant dated 21st December, 2009 and for dismissal of Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.16576/09 pending on the file of 22nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. It appears that the applicant is facing Criminal Complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The respondent (Original complainant) was in need of money and hence, he wanted to sell the immovable property i.e. Block No.1 of House No.595/17, City Survey No.2066/11, Sheet No.32 at Jaripatka, Nagpur. The accused had expressed his wish to purchase the property. The complainant was ready to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- plus the amount of capital gains tax which the complainant would be liable to pay after registration of sale deed. There was an agreement between the complainant and the accused dt.29.6.1996 whereby the accused was to pay consideration within the stipulated period and to get the sale deed registered on payment of full consideration within the stipulated time. The accused had agreed that if he fails to pay the full consideration within the agreed period and to get the sale deed executed, he shall pay an interest @ 18 % p.a. for the delay. The accused failed to pay the consideration as agreed and to get the sale deed executed from the complainant. After about nine years gap, the accused asked the complainant for execution and registration of sale deed in his favour. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that the accused had, without consent of the complainant, got the city survey record altered with ulterior motive. The complainant, therefore, was not ready to execute sale deed in favour of the accused. Thus, the dispute arose between the complainant and the accused.