SOHAN SINGH Vs. GURLABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra whereby complaint filed by applicant under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code has been dismissed and respondents have been acquitted of the charge framed against them.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the applicant -complainant under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code alleging that he is resident of Udham Singh Colony, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra and is law abiding citizen of India. The accused no.1 Gurdeep Singh, who was earlier resident of village Dhakala, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra and was also owner of agricultural land at village Dhakala and had sold his agricultural land measuring 40 kanals to the complainant vide sale deed executed on 12.4.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 13,20,000/ - and 39 kanals 2 marlas vide sale deed dated 22.5.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 12,96,000/ - and received the entire sale consideration of both the sale deeds and thereafter handed over the possession of the land which was earlier in exclusive possession of accused No. 1 to the complainant. The above mentioned land was the part of bigger khewat having total area of 1822 kanals 11 marlas and was having only one approach from North -West corner of khasra no.20. Earlier both the accused were having constant dispute for using the western portion of the khasra No. 10 as path in order to approach the land, which was initially in cultivating possession of the accused No. 1. In order to settle the dispute between the accused, the accused No. 1 had purchased one half share of land measuring 1 kanal 4 marIas i.e. 24/479 share of total land measuring 23 kanals 19 marlas comprised in khewat No. 9 min/ 10, khatoni No. 55, rect. No. 30, khasra no.20(7 -19), 21(8 -0) khatoni No. 52 min rect. No. 34, khasra No. 1(8 -0), vide jamabandi for the year 1995 -96 situated at village Dhakala Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra from the accused No. 2 vide sale deed No. 686/1 dated 21.7.1998. It was specifically recited in the sale deed that the above said portion jointly purchased by the accused No. 1 and Jaspal Singh, Jasdev Singh sons of Gurlabh Singh would be used as a path and no person would be having any right to dismantle the same. To further facilitate the cultivation of the land the accused No. 1 also purchased land measuring 2 kanals 1 marIa being 41/36458 share of total land measuring 1822 kanals 18 marlas comprised in khewat No. 9 min/10, total kittas 325 out of land comprised in khatoni No. 53/51, rect. No. 30, khasra No. 22(8 -0), and rect. No. 34, khasra No. 2(8 -0), 9(8 -0), 12(8 -0), 19(8 -0), vide jamabandi for the year 1995 -96 situated at Village Dhakala, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra from accused No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 21.7.1998. The accused No. 1 after executing the sale deed dated 12.4.2002 and 22.5.2002 referred to above in favour of the complainant, agreed to sell the land measuring 2 kanals 1 marIa detailed in para no.6 of the complaint which the accused no.1 purchased from the accused no. 2 vide sale deed dated 21.7.1998, in favour of the complainant and an agreement to sell this effect was duly executed on 3.10.2002. The entire sale consideration amounting to Rs. 68,000/ - was received by the accused No. 1 from the complainant. The possession of the land was also delivered to the complainant at the time of execution of the agreement. It is specifically recited in the agreement to sell dated 3.10.2002 that the possession of the area measuring 26 feet x 429 feet on the Southern side of khasra nos.1 and 2 of Rect. No. 34 has been handed over to the complainant at spot. In the agreement to sell dated 3.10.2002, it is specifically mentioned that the accused No. 1 will execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant qua the land measuring 2 kanals 1 marIa after getting the mutation sanctioned in favour of accused No. l. After purchase of the land by the complainant on 12.4.2002, 22.5.2002 and 3.10.2002 the accused no.2 had started harassing the complainant and had tried to dismantle the path and thereafter the complainant along with accused No. 1 had filed a Civil Suit No. 482/03 on 11.9.2003, against the accused No. 2 regarding this land restraining him for alienating the above said land and also from dispossessing the complainant from the above mentioned land 2 kanals 1 marIa. The complainant along with accused No. 1 Gurdeep Singh had also filed a Civil Suit No. 391/2 on 25.10.2002 against Gurlabh Singh, Jasdev Singh and Jaspal Singh restraining him from dismantling the path. Both the above said Civil Suits were pending in the court of Shri N.K. Singhal, Learned Civil Judge. In Civil Suit No. 483/03 the accused No. 1 Gurdeep Singh had filed the suit along with Sohan Singh complainant against Gurlabh Singh. In the Civil Suit accused No. 1 had written in the plaint that the accused no.1 had purchased 2 kanals 1 marIa being 41/36458 share of total land measuring 1822 kanals 18 marIas comprised in No. 9 min/10, total kittas 325 out of land comprised in khatoni No. 53/51, rect No. 30, khasra No. 22(8 -0) and rect. No. 34, khasra No. 2(8 -0), 9 (8 -0), 12(8 -0), 19(8 -0) vide jamabandi for the year 1995 -1996 situated at village Dhakala, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra from the accused No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 21.7.1998 and thereafter vide agreement dated 3.10.2002 the accused No. 1 had entered into an agreement with the complainant and transferred/sold the above said land to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 68,000/ - and received the entire sale consideration and possession of the above said land was handed over to the complainant. The mutation of the above said land was not sanctioned in favour of accused No. 1 regarding the sale deed dated 21.7.1998 which was purchased by accused No. 1 from accused No. 2. In the agreement to sell dated 3.10.2002 it is specifically mentioned that accused No. 1 will execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant after getting the mutation sanctioned in his favour qua this land. Accused No. 2 had contested Civil Suit No. 483/03 filed by the complainant along with accused No. 1 and both the accused had full knowledge of the above said agreement to sell and in the said suit the learned trial court had passed the order dated 21.4.2005 wherein both the parties were directed to maintain status quo and thereafter accused No. 1 along with the complainant had filed a civil appeal against the said order on 23.4.2005 and the same was decided on 23.2.2007 by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The complainant had come to know that mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the accused No. 1 vide mutation No. 967. It was in the full knowledge of both the accused that accused No. 1 had agreed to sell the above said land measuring 2 kanals 1 marIa to the complainant vide agreement to sell dated 3.10.2002 and had received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 68,000/ - and had handed over the possession of the above said land to the complainant and the complainant is in physical possession of above said land and in order to cheat both the accused had hatched a conspiracy and accused no.1 had sold the above said land to accused No. 2 on 14.8.2007 for a fictitious consideration of Rs. 1,54,000/ - despite the fact that the accused No. 1 had no right, title or interest in the above said land. It is written in the sale deed dated 14.8.2007 that accused No. 1 is the owner in possession of the above said land measuring 2 kanals 1 marIa whereas in fact, accused no.1 had handed over the possession of above said land to the complainant on 3.10.2002 and this fact is in the knowledge of both the accused. Thus, the accused has committed offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, present complainant was filed.

(3.) IT is worthwhile to mention here that accused Gurdeep Singh had expired during the pre -charge evidence and proceedings against him were dropped on 29.10.2011.