VIPIN KHANNA Vs. AMRIK SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition, under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner-accused, Vipin Khanna, for quashing of Complaint No. 178, dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure P-6), pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon; the summoning order dated 7.3.2009 (Annexure P-7); the order dated 20.3.2010 (Annexure P-9), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed; and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainantrespondent No. 1 had filed the complaint, dated 17.3.2008, (Annexure P-6), before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, for prosecution of the petitioner-accused and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, with the allegations that on 6.3.1973, Plot No. 382, Sector 14, Gurgaon, was allotted in the joint name of complainantrespondent No. 1, Amrik Singh, and his wife, Gian Kaur, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority; after allotment of the said plot, complainant-respondent No. 1 went to United Kingdom and came back to India on 21.1.1985; when complainantrespondent No. 1 went to see the plot, he came to know that the plot was grabbed by the petitioner-accused, Vipin Khanna, on the basis of a forged and fabricated Power of Attorney, purporting the same to have been executed by him (complainant-respondent No. 1) and his wife, Gian Kaur, on 7.6.1984, in the name of one Indu Singh, whereas no such Power of Attorney was ever executed by them because on the alleged date of execution, complainant-respondent No. 1 was in the United Kingdom; on coming to know the said position, complainant-respondent No. 1 immediately filed an application before the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, but no action was taken; on 12.5.1985, complainant-respondent No. 1 again left India for the United Kingdom and that the petitioner-accused, Vipin Khanna, sold the plot in favour of Inder Kumar Bansal and his wife, Sumitra Bansal, vide registered sale deed, dated 25.10.1986.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, after holding an enquiry, passed the summoning order, dated 7.3.2009, against Indu Singh, Vipin Khanna and Inder Kumar Bansal, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, whereas the complaint qua remaining accused was dismissed. Against the summoning order, the petitioner-accused, Vipin Khanna, filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Court of Session. He also enclosed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision. Vide his order dated 20.3.2010, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as the criminal revision petition.