TILAK RAJ Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 28.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing the appeal filed by State against judgment dated 03.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner alleging that the accused-Respondent No.1 had executed an agreement to sell dated 02.12.2002 in respect of property bearing Khasra No. 2/14/2/1 in favour of the petitioner-complainant and his brother Lal Singh, for consideration of Rs.4,60,000/- and received Rs. One lac. The sale was agreed to be executed on or before 31.05.2003. On 30.05.2003, the petitioner visited the office of Sub Registrar, Mukerian, but the accused-Balbir Singh did not turn up. On 31.05.2003 and 1.6.2003, there were holidays and the petitioner again visited the office of Sub Registrar on 02.06.2003, but the accused-Balbir Singh did not turn up. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance. It is further alleged that a case titled as Balraj Sharma vs. Balbir Singh etc. in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 14/2/1 was pending, which was dismissed on 25.09.2001. Another appeal titled as Balraj vs. Balbir Singh in respect of Khasra No. 2R/14/2/2 (1-0) was pending in the High Court, in which stay was granted. But in the stay order, no khasra number was mentioned. Both the accused in connivance with each other got stay order fraudulently. Balbir Singh accused had produced copy of stay order before Tehsildar, Mukerian and Police Station Mukerian representing it to be order of stay concerning land in question due to which sale deed could not be executed nor he could succeed in getting possession. Both the accused usurped the earnest money of Rs. One lac. They did not return this amount despite repeated demands made by the petitioner. Rather, the accused filed a civil suit against the petitioner-complainant and others thereby restraining from executing sale deed forcibly. Said suit was dismissed on 16.7.2004. After all this, petitioner filed complaint against the accused.

(3.) completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused-respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.