DEV KARAN Vs. SUBHASH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeks quashing of the order dated 14.8.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaual, whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 13.6.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, discharging the accused-respondents, in the complaint filed by the petitioner, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly put, facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, in para 2 of the impugned order, are that Bansi Lal and Surajbhan, both sons of Mamraj, alongwith Jainarain son of Kanhiya Lal and Manohar Lal son of Har Sahai were recorded to be owners of land bearing khewat No. 198, khatuni No. 272, khasra No. 558 total measuring 2 bigha 3 biswa situated within the revenue estate of Narnaul, while the complainant was recorded to be in possession of said land as gair marusi tenant, as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90. It was pleaded that the accused met the complainant and represented that abovesaid Bansi Lal, Surajbhan, Jainarain and Manohar Lal had died and they, alongwith Smt. Maya Devi widow and grand children of Jainarain namely Ramesh, Govind and Vikas and daughters Mithlesh and Uma, were owners of the aforementioned land competent to sell the same. Accordingly, accused No.1, with dishonest intention to cheat the complainant, entered into an agreement to sell of the abovesaid land in favour of the complainant on behalf of all the legal heirs of Jarinarain, referred to hereinabove, for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,25,000/- and received an amount of Rs. 4 lacs as earnest money on 18.2.2006. It was further alleged that accused had promised to execute the sale deed after sanctioning of mutation of inheritence in their favour and accused No.2-Dinesh had agreed to the terms of agreement, but subsequently, the accused did not execute the sale deed despite repeated request of the complainant. Thus, the complainant became suspicious and inspected the revenue record and came to know that the accused and other legal heirs of Jainaran were owners of the above noted land only to the extent of 1/3 share and remaining 2/3 share was owned by Mrs. Mishri Devi and Krishna Gopal, who were legal heirs of one Nand Lal son of Radhey Shyam son of Bhanwar Lal. It was alleged that the complainant came to know about the said facts from mutation Nos. 13427/13429/13430/13431/13432/13433/13518/13519 and 13520 which were sanctioned on 18.2.2006 and thus, accused represented themselves to be absolute owners of the aforesaid land alongwith other legal heirs of Jainarain despite having knowledge that they had only 1/3 share in that property and grabbed an amount of Rs. 4 lacs from the complainant. It was further alleged that despite entering into agreement to sell dated 18.2.2006, accused alongwith other legal heirs of Jainarain sold their share in favour of one Suresh and Rajesh vide registered sale deed bearing vasika No. 326 dated 2.5.2007 and registered sale deed bearing vasika No. 512 dated 15.5.2007. It was further alleged that the accused also got the share of remaining owners of the suit property sold vide registered sale deed No. 37 dated 4.4.2007 and registered sale deed bearing vasika No. 77 dated 9.4.2007 and when the complainant came to know about the said facts, he met the accused at Jaipur and at that time, the accused threatened to kill the complainant. The complainant reported the matter to the police, but the police did not take any action against the accused and the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint.

(3.) Complainant-petitioner led his preliminary evidence and thereafter, accused-resondents were summoned to face the trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). Complainant produced his pre-charge evidence. He produced as many as 7 PWs, besides bringing on record relevant documenatry evidence.