BEANT SINGH Vs. RAJENDER CHAKARWATI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ellenabad, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 218, 468, 471, 409, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Rania was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the order dated 6.3.2013 was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide order dated 13.7.2015 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner-complainant filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ellenabad with the averments that he possessed 18 acres of agricultural land. Respondent no.2 is the sole proprietor of M/s Pinky Chakarwati Trading Company, Anaj Mandi, Rania, which firm is running the business of commission agent. Respondent no.1 is the husband of respondent no.2. The petitionercomplainant used to sell agricultural produce through the said firm. On 11.4.2008, the petitioner brought his 200 quintal wheat for sale at the firm of respondents no.1 and 2. The said wheat was purchased by DFSC, Rania at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per quintal and accordingly, entry was made by respondent no.3 in his auction register. Respondent no.3 is the auction record keeper. After weighing the crop, the petitioner demanded payment of the same, whereupon respondent no.1 told the petitioner that payment would be made to him after receiving the same from the office of DFSC.

(3.) After 4-5 days, the petitioner again demanded his payment, however, respondent no.1 did not make the payment on the pretext that the payment has still not been received from the office of DFSC. Petitioner kept on demanding the payment but the respondents-accused kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally, the petitioner moved a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa on 24.7.2008, whereupon, respondent no.1 assured the petitioner that he will make the payment within 4-5 days. But even after 4-5 days of the commitment, respondent no.1 did not make the payment. In order to resolve the matter, a Panchayat was convened in Village Rania on 9.8.2008, but respondent no.1 flatly refused to make any payment. Respondent no.4 in collusion with other accused has got removed the name of the petitioner from the record of Market Committee. The petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act and came to know that respondents no.1 to 4 in collusion with each other have got incorporated the name of other person instead of the petitioner in the record of Market Committee by doing over-writing in order to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner and give wrongful gain to respondents no.1 and 2. In this way, the respondents-accused have committed offences under Sections 218, 468, 471, 409, 420, 120-B IPC.