RAMDAS Vs. DADARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mahalle, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ghodeswar, learned APP for the respondent No. 2. Mr. Samel, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is absent.

(2.) It is contended that the respondent No. 1, who was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 525/1, situated at Mouza Godhani Tahsil and District Nagpur, had entered into an agreement with Murlidhar Co-operative Housing Society Limited for sale of the same on 26/12/1996. The petitioners are the President and Secretary of the said Society. It is contended that the said agreement did not fructify into a sale and the consideration of Rs.19,000.00 paid under the said agreement by the Society to the respondent No. 1 was received back, resulting in cancellation of the said agreement. The Society thereafter entered into an agreement with one Shalik Ramchandra Sarode in respect of the land of Survey No. 144 and laid a layout thereupon and sold the plots to its members.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 filed a dispute before the learned Co-operative Court claiming that under the terms of the agreement dtd. 26/12/1996, he was entitled to a plot of land in addition to the monetary consideration payable under the said agreement and since the agreement had fructified into a sale deed he was entitled for the said plot of land claiming that the land of Survey No. 525/1 and that of Survey No. 144 were one and the same properties. The learned Cooperative Court, by the Judgment dtd. 28/2/2012, dismissed the dispute and so also the contention of the respondent No. 1, that he was entitled to plot No. 6 in Survey No. 260/1 (new No. 144) and that in the agreement with the respondent No. 1, Survey No. 525/1 was wrongly mentioned, or that both Survey Nos. 525/1 and 144 were in the same properties. An appeal carried by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Co-operative Appellate Court bearing Appeal No. 17/2012 came to be dismissed by learned Appellate Court by Judgment dtd. 11/4/2016 and Writ Petition No. 4287 of 2016 against the same, came to be dismissed by this Court on 9/9/2019. It is thus contended that the plea on the basis of which the complaint was lodged by filing a complaint under Ss. 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 463, 468, 470, 491 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was itself not tenable. An application for discharge filed by the petitioners, came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court by the order dtd. 19/3/2013 passed in RCC No. 186 of 2002. The learned Appellate Court however by the impugned Judgment dtd. 28/6/2017, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of discharge as passed by the learned Trial Court/Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is therefore, contended that in view of the above fact position, the judgment of the learned Sessions Court, would not be legally sustainable, more so, in light of the confirmation of the finding of the learned Co-operative Court as well as the learned Cooperative Appellate Court by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4287 of 2016, decided on 9/9/2019.