SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. VIMAL BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib whereby complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed and the respondent has been acquitted of the notice of accusation served upon him.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are to the effect that applicantcomplainant filed complaint with the averments that he was doing the business of kachha Aartia at New Grain Market, Sri Muktsar Sahib and was also running a shop of pesticides namely G.S.Agro Centre. He was the sole proprietor of the said firm. The account books of the firm were used to be maintained by his accountant Vijay Kumar and his father Satpal. Accused No.2 was partner of the firm Chanan Ram and Company, Sri Muktsar Sahib. On 01.04.1994, an amount of Rs. 1,66,360/- of the complainant firm was outstanding against the firm Chanan Ram and company. On 01.04.1996, an amount of Rs. 1,71,777/- was outstanding against the above said firm. On 23.07.1996, the above said firm took a loan of Rs. 93,650/- from the complainant-firm and on 20.11.1996, an amount of Rs. 2,60,427/- without including interest were to be taken by the complainant firm from the Chanan Ram and Company, Sri Muktsar Sahib. A civil suit for the recovery of the above said amount is pending against the above said firm from 17.08.1998. Accused No.1 is son of accused No.2 and also her attorney. Accused No.3 is friend of accused No.1. All the three accused entered into a conspriacy to save themselves from the liability of paying the loan amount in the decree to be passed against accused No.2 in the recovery suit and keeping in view that in the execution proceedings the shop No.165 situated at grain market, Sri Muktsar Sahib owned by accused No.2 would be auctioned, accused No.1 being attorney of accused No.2 fraudulently got that shop tansferred on 22.11.1996 in favour of accused No.3 and by falsely showing their residential address at Delhi got the sale deed registered at Delhi. Thereafter, mutation was also entered in the revenue record. With these averments, the complaint was filed.

(3.) On the basis of preliminary evidence, the respondent-accused along with others was summoned under Sections 206/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC').