KIRAN JAIN Vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.) has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to register the criminal complaint which has been declined to be registered by trial Court as well as in revision by Sessions Court, Jabalpur.

(2.) In nut shell, the facts of the case are that respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner to sell his 1/3 rd joint share (undivided) of House No.551/1, New No.908, situated at Lordganj, Jabalpur on 26.12.04 for a consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.5,000/- were taken in advance, the date of registration was fixed up to 30 th September, 2005. The agreement was also notarized. On 28.1.05, petitioner gave a public notice through newspaper and in reply Dinesh Choudhary,one of the sharer, on 2.2.05 objected that respondent has no authority to sell the undivided share. Thereafter on 5.2.05 respondent executed sale deed of his share for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of Smt.Rajni Choudhary and Dinesh Kumar Jain. As soon as the execution of aforesaid sale deed came to the knowledge of petitioner, she lodged an FIR on 14.2.05 at PS-Kotwali, Jabalpur, but no action was taken by the police, so petitioner filed criminal complaint before JMFC with a request to send the complaint to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Police filed report together with the statement of petitioner and others and revealed before the Court that no criminal case under Sections 420,467 and 468 IPC was made out. On this report, JMFC dismissed the complaint on 2.5.05, against which Criminal Revision No.184/05 was preferred before the Court of Sessions. The then learned Sessions Judge on 25.06.05 dismissed the revision and refused to interfere in the order of JMFC, Jabalpur.

(3.) This petition has been filed to quash the order of both Courts and direct the JMFC to take cognizance under Sections 420,467 and 468 of IPC as petitioner has been cheated, and inspite of written agreement and taking advance within stipulated time fraudulently the share was sold by the respondent to third person.