SMT. SANTOSH RANI Vs. IRFAN ULLAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner/accused Santosh Rani and six other co-accused persons. It is directed against order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Court of First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge Narsinghpur in Criminal Revision No.47/2016, whereby the order dated 19.1.2016 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur (Manoj Kumar Bhati), dismissing the private complaint filed by respondents/complainants Irfan Ullah Khan and Hidayat Ullah Khan under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., was set aside and learned Magistrate was directed to take the original agreement filed by the complainants on record, afford the complainants opportunity to file any other document and consider the complaint in accordance with law.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this misc. criminal case may briefly be stated thus: The respondents/complainants (hereinafter referred to in this order as 'the complainants') filed a complainant under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners Kewalchand Jain, Santosh Mani, Raj Kumar Jain, Shobha Jain, Vinay Kumar Jain, Neelima Jain, Vijay Kumar Jain and Rita Jain (hereinafter referred to in this order as 'the accused persons') alleging that the complainants had entered into an agreement with the accused persons on 7.4.2010 for sale of the roof admeasuring 100' x 100' over the shops constructed on the plot of the complainants on stamp papers worth Rs.2500/-. They had also agreed to provide staircases constructed on western side of shop No.26 and in shop No.44, for accessing the roof. The complainants had received seven bank drafts drawn on Central Bank of India issued by the accused persons cumulatively valued at Rs.13,50,000/-. They were to receive remaining amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- at the time of registry; however, the accused persons also wrote in the agreement that the complainants had also received cheque No.107091 dated 26.5.2008 drawn on Central Bank of India Branch Kareli in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-; whereas, no such cheque was ever given to the complainants. The accused persons induced the complainants to acknowledge the receipt of such cheque in the agreement on the promise that they would give the cheque later; however, inspite of repeated demands, the accused persons never gave a cheque and thus cheated the complainants of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Subsequently, the accused persons filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract for sale alleging that they had paid entire amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainants, whereas the complainants had only received 13,50,000/-. The complainants issued a notice mentioning aforesaid fact to the accused persons and rescinded the contract for sale.

(3.) Learned Magistrate called for the report from the police and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. mainly on the grounds that the complainant had failed to file original agreement and had also failed to file any document evidencing the fact that they had not received any amount under cheque No. 107091 dated 26.5.2008 drawn on Central Bank of India Branch Kareli issued by the accused persons. The complainants filed a revision petition against aforesaid order and also filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for taking agreement on record. The Revisionary Court allowed application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and took the document on record. It observed that the complaint had been dismissed on technical grounds; therefore, the order dismissing the complaint was set aside and learned Magistrate was directed to afford the complainants opportunity to file documents in support of the complainant and thereafter to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur is subject matter of challenge before this Court.