NITYANANDA BARKAKATI Vs. DEBENDRA NOTH CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is for quashing the criminal proceeding which was registered as complaint case No. 347C/81 and is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Gauhati.

(2.) The complaint petition is at Annexure-1 and the initial Statements of the complainant is at Annexure-2. After receiving the complaint petition and recording initial Statements of the complainant, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 420 I.P.C. and issued bailable warrant of arrest against the present two petitioners. It may be Stated that petitioner No. 2 herein is the husband of petitioner No.1.

(3.) There is no dispute that the accused petitioner No.1 is a government servant. In the complaint petition, it has been alleged that both the accused persons approached the complaint in the 3rd week of October, 1990 with an intention of purchasing a plot of land situated at village Jatia under Beltola Mouza. The area of the land was 2 Kathas 11 Leches. The proposal was accepted and it has been alleged that a written agreement was executed on 24/10/1990 and the price fixed for the entire land was Rs. 3,50,000.00 and the accused persons paid Rs. 10,000.00 in cash on the same day and promised to pay the balance before registration of the sale deed. It was further been alleged that the said original agreement for sale was kept by the accused persons and only a copy was supplied to the complainant. According to that complainant after execution of the agreement both the accused persons became very friendly with the complainant and the members of the family and behaved as if they were also members of, the family of the complainant. It has also been stated that accused persons started addressing the complainant as DeutaT (father) and accordingly a the complainant took the accused persons into al; confidence as he had no reason to suspect the h accused persons. The complainant was informed that registration of the sale deed would be done on b 24/12/1990. It has been alleged that accused petitioner No. 1 gave an account payee cheque drawn on the S.B.1., Dispur Branch for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and the cheque was signed by the accused h No. 2 and it was a post dated one as the date in the cheque was recorded as on 27/12/1990. Complainant deposited the cheque as per request of the h accused persons after 27/12/1990. According to a the complainant he received the post dated account payee cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs as according to the accused No. 2, the amount was managed by selling her ornaments and it was also stated that the balance of Rs. 40,000.00 would be paid later. The complainant was also told that two sale deeds t were prepared for the aforesaid land, one in favour a of accused No. 1 for an area of land measuring 1 katha 6 lechas and other in the name of the accused petitioner No. 2 for an area of 1 katha 5 lechas. The sale deeds were not shown to the complainant earlier and at the time of registration, complainant saw the sale deeds and found that price shown in the first sale deed in favour of accused petitioner No. 1 was Rs. 30,000/- and in the other sale deed Rs. 25,000/-. Complainant objected, but the accused persons explained that less amount was shown to avoid certain difficulties of their own and to save money.T According to the complainant he being an innocent persons put his signatures on both the sale deeds-as directed by the accused persons and he had no chance to complain. On 28.12.1990 the cheque of Rs. 3 lakhs was deposited for collection, but it was received back with an endorsement by the bank 1 that the payment was stayed by the drawer. It has also been alleged in the complaint petition that thereafter, he visited the house of the accused persons who assured that a new cheque will be issued and it will be honoured. Thereafter, the complainant, his son and his son-in-law again visited the house of the accused persons on several occasions and on last date the accused persons started misbehaving and even closed the door and as such the complainant was convinced that the accused persons have cheated him. A statement has also been made in the complaint petition that the accused persons promised that the amount will be paid in the 3rd week of February. But when the complainant met the accused persons in the said week, they threatened the complainant. According to the complainant the accused persons dishonestly induced the complainant to believe them in executing the sale without recovering the entire amount, there by deceiving the complainant. In his initial statement, the complainant has reiterated whatever has been stated in the complaint petition.