KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. TULSI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by filing present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the impugned order dtd. 9/10/2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide which the order dtd. 15/9/2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul while directing the same to restore the case and pass a summoning order.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that allegedly, petitioner no.1 acting as the General Power of Attorney of petitioner no.2 (owner in possession), executed an agreement to sell on 24/12/2014 qua land measuring 18 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs.6,37,500.00. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.4,96,000.00 was paid by the respondent as earnest money to petitioner no.1 and 2 and the balance amount of Rs.1,41,500.00 was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of the aforesaid sale deed, i.e., 24/12/2105. When on 24/12/2015 the respondent requested petitioner no.1 and 2 to execute the agreement to sell dtd. 24/12/2014, the petitioner no.1 and 2 assured that they would be present at the office of the Sub-Registrar but did not come. The respondent remained present at the office with the balance sale consideration but to no avail. When the respondent made an inquiry on her own and found out that instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent who was willing to pay the balance sale consideration, the petitioners being members of the same family, in connivance with each other and in order to cause wrongful loss to the respondent, transferred the aforesaid land in the name of petitioner no.3 by way of sale deed dtd. 21/8/2015 and even the necessary mutation was also sanctioned on 24/9/2015 in favour of petitioner no.3.

(3.) Thereupon, the respondent filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioners and in alternative, prayed for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,37,500.00 and also challenged the sale deed dtd. 21/8/2015. The learned Civil Court, Narnaul, decreed the same vide judgement and decree dtd. 25/8/2017 (Annexure P-1) in favour of the respondent for recovery of Rs.4,96,000.00 along with interest @ 8% per annum from 25/12/2014 till realization within 3 months from petitioner no.2, after observing that even though Rs.4,96,000.00 was paid out of Rs.6,37,500.00 by the respondent but the possession was not handed over to her, thereby, pointing towards the fact that the aforesaid transaction was for the security of loan as alleged by the petitioners-defendants before the said Court.