INDER MOHAN KUMAR Vs. WADHAWA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner Inder Mohan Kumar was arrayed as an accused alongwith others in criminal complaint filed by the present respondent Wadhawa Ram. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, after recording to the preliminary evidence came to the opinion that there was sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused under sections 423, 467, 468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly he ordered that processes be issued against the accused. In this petition the petitioner prays for quashing the said order.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the complaint the present petitioner, who is residing in Chandigarh, is the owner of plot No. 926 situated in Sector 14, Faridabad. He agreed to sell that plot to the complainant for Rs. 21700/-. Inder Mohan Kumar executed an agreement of sale and delivered it to the complainant on 2.11.1980. He also executed a receipt about the receipt of the consideration. He also executed an indemnity bond in the name of the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, to transfer the said plot in the name of the complainant as per rules of the Estate Office and deposited it in the Estate Office. According to the rules, the complainant deposited two drafts, one for Rs. 3500/- and the other for Rs. 1360/- in the name of Inder Mohan Kumar with the Estate Office for the purposes of transfer of the plot. The Estate Officer issued letter No. 1609-10 dated 22.1.1981 to the complainant stating therein that the said plot had been transferred in his name. H.R. Ahuja, proprietor of M/s Ahuja Property Dealers, Faridabad, met the complainant and told him that there was some clerical mistake in the transfer letter issued by the Estate Office and Harinder Singh, Superintendent-cum-Assistant of the said office, wanted to see him (i.e. the complainant) in his office. (It may be mentioned here that both, H.R. Ahuja and Harinder Singh have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3). The complainant went to the Estate Office and met Harinder Singh, who took the letter from the complainant and told him that there was a letter of accused No. 1 i.e. Inder Mohan Kumar to cancel all his documents for the transfer of that said plot and so that letter of transfer would remain with him i.e. accused No. 3 till further orders. Thus accused No. 3 in collusion with accused Nos. 1 and 2 retained that letter and refused to handover the same to the complainant. The complainant also received one letter from accused No. 1 stating that all the documents in connection with the transfer of the plot have been cancelled as the cheque given to him by H.R. Ahuja had been dishonoured. The complainant received one letter from the Estate Officer, Faridabad, stating that the transfer letter No. 1609-10 dated 22.1.1981 stood cancelled as it had been issued unsigned. Thus accused No. 3 in collusion with accused Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently and dishonestly obtained the original letter from the complaint and got cancelled the transfer of the said plot. The complainant visited respondent No. 3 in the letter's office on 14.6.1981 and asked him to deliver the transfer letter dated 22.1.1981. Accused No. 3 told the complainant that as the said letter was not duly signed by the Estate Officer so it has been with drawn. Accused No. 3 showed the file and also the unsigned transfer letter. However, that letter was not the same which had been taken by accused No. 3 from the complainant by practising fraud. Thus accused No. 3 in collusion with accused Nos. 1 and 2 changed the original letter of transfer and fraudulently and dishonestly destroyed it.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no evidence on the record to support that allegation of collusion. It is to be noted that the case at present is at the stage of summoning of the accused and, therefore, we have only to see the allegations contained in the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate.