BISHAM DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BISHAM Dev accused-petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for quashing the FIR (Annexure 'P-l') for the offences under section 420 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, Police Station Jagadhri and subsequent proceedings resulting therefrom including an order dated 22.2.1985 of the trial Court framing the charge (Annexure 'P2') for the above referred offences.

(2.) THE facts of the case figuring in the First Information Report (Annexure 'P-l'), read as under :-

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , according to the version of Shri Bhulla Ram, complainant, contained in FIR (Annexure P1) he is in cultivating possession of the land of Bisham Dev accused etc, Bisham Dev accused-petitioner secured an order of the Assistant Collector, Jagadhri, for ejectment of the complainant from the land in dispute. The complainant then went in appeal before the Collector, Ambala, against the order of Assistant Collector, Jagadhri. The Collector maintained the order of the Assistant Collector, Jagadhri, and also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to tenant Bhulla Ram. The complainant then paid Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the landlord awarded by the Collector, Ambala. It is averred that on the day of payment of this compensation in the office of Brij Mohan, Document Writer, the landlord had entered into agreement to sell the land, in dispute for Rs. 10,000/-. The possession of this land however remained with the tenant (complainant). On the stipulated date both the parties approached the above referred Deed Writer and they asked the complainant to purchase stamps paper worth Rs. 1250/- Thereafter, the sale deed was written. Bisham Dev then demanded Rs. 25,000/- for executing the sale deed. The complainant, however, expressed his inability to pay the same, which resulted in non-registration of the sale deed. It is further alleged that the Deed Writer refused to return the Stamp-paper to the complainant. It is further alleged that the landlord sold the land to some other person despite the stay order obtained by the complainant from the Civil Court. There is no indication from the FIR that Bisham Dev had intention to cheat the complainant at the outset when he executed the agreement to sell the land or that he had instructed the co-accused not to return the Stamp-papers to the complainant. On the other hand, it appears that due to hike in the prices of immoveable property, Bhisham Dev petitioner had fallen prey to the usual greed of getting more money and refused to execute the sale deed. Admittedly, a Civil Suit regarding the same matter is pending between the parties. There is no allegation that the Deed Writer refused to return the stamp paper at the instance of Bisham Dev.