ARUN SHARMA Vs. RISHI RAJ CHAUHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the order dated 8.5.2015 (Annexure P -1), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.2.2014 (Annexure P -2), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon, discharging the respondent -accused, was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel contends that at the time of preliminary evidence, all the relevant documents supporting the oral evidence of the petitioner, were placed on record and duly marked. However, after summoning of the accused/respondents and during pre -charge evidence, due to the fault of the lawyer representing the petitioner/complainant, the documents which were available on record, could not be exhibited as per law and, as such, same were not read in evidence in favour of the petitioner. Due to the fault of the lawyer, the petitioner/complainant should not be allowed to suffer. He further submits that the well proved case of the petitioner/complainant cannot be thrown merely on the basis of the fault of the lawyer representing him (petitioner). He has also submitted that the allegations levelled against the accused/respondents are serious in nature. Despite the fact that the respondents entered into an agreement with the petitioner/complainant and charged the token money, they failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period, would clearly spell out that they had mala fide intention to commit the offence. He further submits that culpability of the respondents would also be judged from the fact that during subsistence of the agreement with the petitioner/complainant, the accused/respondents also entered into yet another agreement with third person with regard to the same property.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondents, Rishi Raj Chauhan and Smt. Chander Bala, offered to sell their house situate in Urban Estate, Gurgaon, and entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner/complainant. Despite charging the token money, the respondents failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and, as such, he (petitioner) was constrained to file a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. Later on a compromise was effected between the parties and the civil suit was withdrawn. The respondents did not honour the terms and conditions of the compromise effected during pendency of the civil suit. The petitioner filed an execution petition, which was allowed. The respondents thereafter filed an application challenging the compromise alleged to have been effected between the parties during pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioner. Since the respondents had criminal intention to commit the offences, therefore, a complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC.