KARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashing criminal complaint titled "Ved Parkash vs. Karam Chand and another" (Annexure P -3), summoning order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P -5) and proceedings emanating therefrom. Counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No. 2 (complainant) purchased land measuring 02 kanals 05 marlas comprising khasra No.23//22, vide sale deed dated 12.4.2004 executed by petitioner No. 1 being owner of the said land, on the basis of agreement to sell dated 9.7.2003 executed between the parties. Possession of the sold land was delivered in favour of the vendee at the time of sale. In the year 2009, respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit and criminal compliant, instituted on 3.9.2009, on the premise that out of land measuring 02 kanals 05 marlas sold in his favour, he has been deprived of 07 marlas of land and, therefore, accused No. 1 has cheated him of Rs. 63,000/ - i.e value of 07 marlas of land at the rate of Rs. 9,000/ - per marla. In the civil suit filed by the respondent, he claimed refund of money equal to value of 07 marlas of land or giving him another 07 marlas of land in lieu of land lost by him and sought specific performance of the contract, detailed in registered sale deed dated 12.4.2004. The civil suit and the criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of demarcation conducted by Kanungo on 14.6.2009. During pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the civil suit has been decided by the Additional Sessions Judge (Senior Division), Kurkukshetra vide judgment (Annexure P9) and the court has refused to rely upon the aforesaid demarcation report with the observations that no notice was given to the parties prior to conducting of demarcation by the concerned official.

(2.) THE suit filed by the complainant was dismissed though an appeal is pending against the judgment passed by the trial court.

(3.) THE trial Magistrate summoned a report from the concerned police station under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") and SI Dharampal, Station House Officer, Jhansa submitted report dated 6.3.2012. In the said report, it was clearly mentioned that according to jamabandi for the year 2000 -2001, the respondent (Karam Chand) had sold land measuring 02 kanals 05 marlas to the complainant. As per jamabandis for the years 2005 -2006 and 2010 -2011, the complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 02 kanals 05 marlas and, therefore, no cognizable offence is made out and the allegations levelled in the complaint are found to be false. It is argued that the learned trial court altogether ignored the report submitted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. while issuing process for summoning the petitioners for committing offence of fraud and forgery. It is vehemently argued that as petitioner No. 1 is recorded to be owner in possession of the land sold by him vide sale deed dated 12.4.2004 and admittedly the respondent -complainant was delivered possession of land measuring 02 kanals 05 marlas sold in his favour and remained in possession of the said land upto the year 2009 as per version of the complainant, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") is made out as the essential ingredients of offence of cheating are missing to prove that petitioner No. 1 had dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction which took place in the year 2004. It is further submitted that the complainant during civil proceedings has failed to establish his plea that he has been deprived of possession of land measuring 07 marlas out of sold land measuring 02 kanals 05 marlas. It is further argued that in the sale deed executed between the parties, there was a specific recital that in case any defect is found in the title of the vendor, the vendee shall be compensated for the same. The complainant/respondent took recourse to appropriate proceedings by filing a civil suit seeking possession in lieu of alleged 07 marlas of land taken away by owner of adjoining land but he came out to be unsuccessful in the civil proceedings.