RANJIT KUMAR LOHRIA Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RANJIT Kumar Lohria has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint dated September 5, 1990, (Annexure P/1) and the subsequent order of summoning (Annexure P/2) and the order of the Sessions Judge (Annexure P/3) along with other proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sirsa. The brief facts of the case are that Kamla Rani wife of the petitioner owned a plot measuring 19 marlas situated in Khanna Colony, Noida. On March 17, 1990, the petitioner agreed to sell that plot to Madan Lal respondent for a consideration of Rs., 2,15,000/- and received Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses. He represented that he was entering into an agreement to sell the plot with the consent and consultation of his wife and he had full powers to transfer the same. The sale deed was to be executed upto 28th June, 1990. Madan Lal found that the petitioner and his wife were negotiating to sell the aforesaid plot to another person and therafter he filed a civil suit titled Madan Lal v. Ranjit Kumar etc. Ranjit Kumar and his wife were restrained by the Court from alienating the plot during the pendency of the suit. In that suit Kamla Rani filed a written statement alleging that her husband Ranjit Kumar had no title to sell the plot nor she had consented that he could negotiate with regard to the plot. Madan Lal alleged that Ranjit Kumar had dishonest intention from the very beginning and he committed fraud on him and obtained Rs. 10,000/- by way of earnest money. He had no intention to sell the plot so he and his wife never appeared before the Sub Registrar on the date fixed for the execution and registration of the sale-deed. On these allegations he filed complaint Annexure P/1 for prosecution of Ranjit Kumar for an offence under Section 420 IPC.

(2.) AFTER preliminary evidence was recorded the trial Court summoned the petitioner to stand trial for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Aggrieved by this order dated 17.8.1991 the petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order Annexure P/3.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.