BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, one Bagrawat Singh, son of Kalu Singh, was the owner (to the extent of 1/3rd share) of the land in question, situated within the revenue estate of village Nimbhera, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. He agreed to sell his share in the land in dispute to complainant Kanwar Singh son of Nitya Nand-respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant"), vide agreement to sell dated 20.07.2006 (for short "the 1st agreement") at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per acre. He was stated to have received a sum of Rs. 7 lacs in cash, as earnest money. The sale-deed was to be executed and registered on or before 30.09.2006. It was alleged that the complainant has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but Bagrawat Singh did not turn up to execute the sale-deed, as per the terms & conditions of the agreement. On the contrary, with the connivance, of other co-accused, subsequently, he has executed another false agreement to sell in favour of his brother Bahadur Singh (petitioner), purported to have been written on 4.4.2006, after purchasing the stamp papers in the back date and by fabricating the documents. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that Bagrawat Singh (accused No. 1) with the connivance of other co-accused, did not perform his part of the contract dated 20.07.2006 and failed to execute the sale deed in his favour. On the contrary, subsequently, he has executed another false agreement to sell (in short "the 2nd agreement"), purported to have been written on 04.04.2006 in favour of his brother Bahadur Singh (petitioner-accused No. 2), after purchasing the stamp papers in the back date and by preparing the forged documents. In the background of these allegations, the complainant filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) against the eight accused, including Bagrawat Singh (accused No. 1) and his brother Bahadur Singh (petitioner-accused No. 2), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B, IPC.

(2.) Taking cognizance of the complaint and after considering the preliminary evidence, the complaint, with regard to other accused, was dismissed. However, Bagrawat Singh (accused No. 1) and his brother Bahadur Singh petitioner (accused No. 2) were summoned to face the trial, for committing the offences punishable under s 406 and 420 read with section 120B, IPC by the Magistrate, by way of impugned summoning order dated 19.03.2007 (Annexure P-2).

(3.) Aggrieved by the summoning order (Annexure P2), the revision petition (Annexure P-3) filed by both the accused, was dismissed as well, by the Revisional Court, by means of impugned order dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure P-4).