ASARAM SAKHARAMCHORMARE Vs. SURYAKANT BHAGUJI ANDHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Revisions arise out of the same proceedings being RCC No. 300/1992 and are directed against the order passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 77/1996, setting aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, discharging the accused of the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that petitioner No. 1 is a Surveyor posted in the Office of the District Inspector of Land Records as Cadastral Surveyor. He was in need of money. He, therefore, approached respondent No. 1 for financial assistance. As the respondent sought security petitioner No. 1 executed disputed agreement of sale (Exh. 64) in respect of Plot No. 5, from Gut No. 248 situated at devmurti. The petitioner No. 2 acted as an agent of petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, respondent discovered that petitioner No. 1 had no title to the said plot and in spite of that he executed earnest note with an intention of cheating him. The respondent, therefore, lodged a complaint with the police. As no action was taken, he filed a private Complaint No. 300/1992 in the Court of CJM Jalna. After verification, evidence before charge was recorded. The respondent No. 1 examined himself and one of the attesting witnesses, namely, Ishwarlal. During cross-examination, the respondent No. 1 admitted that he has filed Civil Suit No. 267/1994 in respect of the same transaction. Considering the totality of the circumstances, learned CJM, Jalna, came to the conclusion that the complaint is in respect of Civil dispute. In this view of the matter, he discharged the petitioners by his order dated 25-3-1996.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred Revision being revision Petition No. 77/1996. The learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalna found that petitioners knew from the beginning that petitioner No. 1 had no title over the property in spite of that, they executed earnest note in respect of the said property. Therefore, intention to cheat did exist from the inception. In this view of the matter, he allowed Revision setting aside the order of discharge and remitted the matter back for trial. This order dated 1-7-1997 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalna, is impugned in the present Revisions. For the reasons which are apparent, the petitioners have filed separate Revisions challenging the same order. Therefore, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.