KAMLA JAIN Vs. AJESH JAIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A criminal complaint titled Kamla Jain vs. Ajesh Jain and another was preferred on the allegations of the complainant that she has taken a house measuring 160 square yards on 20 years lease through registered deed dated 01.10.2001 @ Rs. 400/- per month. It is alleged that on the insistence of father of the accused Ajesh Jain and Renu Jain who both are his siblings that he wanted balance money it was on 25.10.2001 the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 96,000/-. It is further alleged that on 27.7.2007 Ram Kishan Jain, father of the accused died and, thereafter, in the month of May, 2010 the accused had told the complainant that they were proposing to sell off their house. It is thereafter, the complainant offered to purchase the house and deal for Rs. 7,00,000/-was struck between them orally. The complainant alleges that in the presence of witnesses she gave Rs. 2,50,000/-to the accused who had put off the matter submitting that the original documents of ownership was lying with the Allahabad Bank against some loan. It is alleged by the complainant that she repaid the loan on behalf of the accused amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/- and obtained NOC and when she called upon the accused to do the needful they kept on lingering the same on one pretext or the other and it was in the presence of Panchayat the accused had conceded that their house was under a loan with Khadi Gram Udyog, Panipat. Thereafter, a series of squabbles took place, whereby, the complainant has moved local Police on 18.8.2010, 22.9.2011 but to no avail and hence filed the complaint in question.

(2.) The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat through order dated 25.10.2012 after recording preliminary evidence finding commission of offences under Sections 406,415,418,420,506 and 34 IPC summoned the accused. The same was challenged in revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat and the Court in revision through impugned judgment dated 7.6.2013 set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint and hence the complainant is before this Court by way of instant revision.

(3.) Heard. It is squarely accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents that the principle of law is very well settled as to the framing of the charge wherein what is to be seen is the element of prima facie case for which reliance has been placed by both the counsel on Kanti Bhadra Shah and another vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 1 RCR(Cri) 407 which is also relied upon in Bhushan Kumar and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2012 2 RCR(Cri) 794 and in Ansal properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and others vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, 2012 3 RCR(Cri) 138 to hold that there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order illustrating reasons for framing of a charge. However, the principle of prima facie case as enunciated in R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay, 1986 AIR(SC) 2045 and State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, 1977 AIR(SC) 2018 and subsequent view in in case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimaraj Bijja and others, 1990 CrLJ 1869 still holds good which has also been reiterated in another view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. S.B. Johari and others, 2000 SCC(Cri) 311 .