HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. SATVINDER SATARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition and emanating from the record is that, petitioners-Harcharan Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Savinder Singh, residents of New Delhi, their brother Pritam Singh and sisters Parkash Kaur and Harjeet Kaur, were the co-owners/co-sharers along with Satvinder Satara son of Daljeet Singh-respondent-complainant(for brevity "the complainant"), Banarsi Lal, Sandeep Kumar and Smt.Nirmal of the joint land in question, measuring 173 Kanals 2 Marla, situated in the village Rajpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. It was claimed that the complainant filed a Civil Suit bearing No.700 dated 27.09.2006, for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners and other co-sharers, from alienating the suit land more than their shares or specific portion out of the land in question. The trial Court vide its order dated 16.10.2006(Annexure P-4) directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and Parkash Kaur and Harjeet Kaur (defendant Nos.5 and 6 therein) were restrained from alienating any specific khasra number, although, the liberty was granted to them to alienate their shares in it. The petitioners were not served in the civil suit. They sold their shares in the suit land to Banarsi Lal, Sandeep Kumar and Smt.Nirmal, vendees, by means of registered sale-deed dated 13.11.2006(Annexure R-1). The relevant portion of which is as under:-

(2.) The complainant did not reconcile with the sale-deed(Annexure R-1) and filed a criminal complaint dated 02.12.2006(Annexure P-1) against the petitioners and their vendees, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B IPC and under Section 82 of The Indian Registration Act, 1908(hereinafter to be referred as "the Registration Act"), inter alia, pleading that the pendency of the civil suit and the interim order was in the knowledge of the accused at the time of registration of the sale-deed, but they have wrongly mentioned in it that no civil suit is pending, nor there is any stay granted by any court. According to the complainant that, since the petitioners have incorporated the specific khasra number in the sale-deed and have mentioned that no civil suit is pending, nor there is any stay from the court in the sale-deed in question, so, they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code(for short "the IPC") and under Section 82 of the Registration Act. That being so, the complainant filed the impugned criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners and their vendees in this regard.

(3.) Taking cognizance of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class summoned the accused to face the trial of the indicated offence by virtue of impugned summoning order dated 01.12.2009(Annexure P-3).