MAHAVEER Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15/09/15 passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.615/14, whereby the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act has been framed against the applicant.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 13/01/13 sale -deed for a consideration of Rs.10,11,000/ - was presented before the Sub -Registrar, Indore for registration. In the sale -deed, the executor was named as Bhaurao S/o Rambhau, r/o ­ 35, Barabhai, Indore. Sale -deed bears the signature of purchaser and seller along with their photographs. Seller and purchaser also appeared before the Sub -Registrar office along with the witnesses Milind, R/o ­ 49, Srinagar Main, Indore and Yogendra Dubey, R/o ­ 92, Roopram Nagar, Indore. They have identified the seller. As per the sale -deed, the size of plot No.97, admeasuring 50 X 36 Ft. On 22/01/03, when the inspection of the plot was conducted, it came to the notice that Bhaurao S/o Rambhau has died 8 years ago. On 23/01/03, seller Bhaurao S/o Rambhau and purchaser Mahavir came to Sub -Registrar office for taking back the documents and information was sought from them regarding the property which has been sold, but they have not furnished the correct information. It was suspected that some other person in place of seller has sold the plot. He disclosed his name as Sunil, R/o ­ Rahul Gandhi Nagar, Indore. Thus, the seller, purchaser and the witnesses have committed an offence of cheating and forgery of the document. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint of Sub - Registrar, Indore, Crime No.24/03 under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act has been registered against the applicant along with Milind, Yogesh and Sunil. After due investigation, charge -sheet has been filed. Learned trial Court has framed the charges as mentioned in para - 1. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order is contrary to law and facts on record. Applicant is a bonafide purchaser. Seller/Rambhau has submitted his identity proof before the Sub -Registrar at the time of execution of sale - deed and witnesses have also identified that person. Applicant has never identified that person before the Registry. Counsel submitted the stamp paper and sale -deed proforma before the Sub -Registrar and the applicant is not responsible for identification of the seller, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. Learned trial Court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and erred in framing the charges. It is prayed that impugned order be set aside.