VIJAY KUMAR Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure P -1) instituted by respondent -Pawan Kumar and setting aside of the order dated 3.1.2012 (Annexure P -2) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana summoning the petitioner and others as accused for committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120 -B IPC. Order dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure P -3) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforementioned order dated 3.1.2012 has also been challenged by him.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the criminal complaint by complainant -Pawan Kumar are that M/s Zimidara Rice and General Mills was recorded as owner of building and land measuring 21 kanals 18 marlas situated in village Mandiani and accused Saravpal Singh, Darshan Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Rajneesh Kumar, alongwith others, were its partners. All the accused approached the complainant on 19.1.2006 and represented to him that they were the only partners of the firm and the firm was owner of building and land aforementioned.

(3.) THEY also showed copy of the Jamabandi to him. All the accused further represented that the land in question had already been agreed to be sold by them on behalf of the firm in favour of Gurinderpal Singh, who was residing in London and they showed the complainant agreement to sell executed between them as sellers and Gurinderpal Singh as purchaser for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,91,00,000/ -. The agreement was executed on 19.10.2005 and as per the same, Rs.10,00,000/ - had already been paid by Gurinderpal Singh to them and further sum of Rs.20,00,000/ - out of the remaining sale consideration was to be paid by the purchaser on 26.10.2005. The accused also showed the complainant an endorsement executed by them at the back of the agreement of sale, as per which the sum of Rs.20,00,000/ - was received by them on 25.11.2005 from Gurinderpal Singh. They further represented that accused Kulwant Singh was authorized attorney of Gurinderpal Singh. Kulwant Singh also represented that he had all the powers to deal with the land of Gurinderpal Singh and to further sell the same to anybody and to receive the consideration of the same. Since the complainant was already in search of some land, all the accused took him to the land in question and after inspecting the same, he agreed to purchase the land for a total sale consideration for Rs.2,23,50,000/ -. An agreement of sale was executed by Kulwant Singh on behalf of Gurinderpal Singh on 20.1.2006 with the complainant. It was mentioned therein that Gurinderpal Singh had already executed power of attorney on 18.1.2006 authorising Kulwant Singh to execute aforementioned agreement of sale in respect of the said land and to receive sale consideration thereof. Accordingly, the complainant handed over a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ - to accused Kulwant Singh on 20.11.2006 in the presence of the other accused in District Courts, Ludhiana where a further sum of Rs.30,00,000/ - was also paid by the complainant to the accused in cash. In all, Rs.50,00,000/ - was paid by the complainant as earnest money although the amount of Rs.20,00,000/ - was recorded in the agreement of sale. The petitioner, namely, Vijay Kumar projected himself as another partner of M/s Zimidara Rice and General Mills. The amount of Rs.50,00,000/ - was divided by all the accused amongst themselves, besides, representing that the sale deed would be executed for lesser amount and the difference of the same which came to be Rs.30,00,000/ - was, thereafter, paid by the complainant to the accused in cash and no mention of it was made in the agreement. All the accused gave a photocopy of the agreement dated 19.10.2005 executed by them as sellers and promised to execute the sale deed as per agreement executed by accused Kulwant Singh on 20.1.2006. After the execution of agreement to sell, the complainant approached the accused on a number of occasions to perform their part of agreement but they had been post -poning the matter all the time. A week before institution of the complaint, he, once again, approached the accused but they refused to perform their part of the agreement and also refused to return the earnest money. All of them tore and destroyed the original agreement of sale dated 19.10.2005 by asserting that the same was manipulated and prepared by them for the sole purpose of extorting money from the complainant and they never intended to sell the land in question to the complainant.