LAWS(P&H)-1997-11-66

INDER SINGH GURAM Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

Decided On November 17, 1997
Inder Singh Guram Appellant
V/S
U.T. CHANDIGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT is a Crl. Misc. petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by petitioner Dr. Inder Singh Guram whereby he has prayed for the setting aside of the order dated 26.8.96 of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. He has further prayed for a direction for investigation of case FIR No. 81 dated 8.8.96 registered at P.S. North, U.T. Chandigarh by some independent investigating agency.

(2.) NOW the facts in brief :- The petitioner was practising as a Doctor in Ganga Nagar (Rajasthan). His son had established business in Chandigarh. In the year 1995, he also shifted to Chandigarh and started putting up with his son. Since his family was putting up in rented accommodation he decided to purchase house at Chandigarh. He came in contact with respondent No. 2 who held himself out to be the absolute owner of house No. 2336, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh free from all encumbrances. It was 8 marla house. He agreed to purchase 8 marla house from respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 15,21,000/-. On 10.5.95, an agreement to sell was executed by respondent No. 2 in his favour and received a sum of Rs. 3 lacs as earnest money. It was stipulated in the agreement that the sale deed would be got registered by 8.11.95 and respondent No. 2 would hand over vacant possession of the house on the execution of the sale deed. Annexure P1 is the copy of the agreement to sell executed by respondent No. 2 in his favour.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 contested this petition urging that he never agreed to sell his house to the petitioner. No such agreement, as has been set up by the petitioner, was entered into between him and the petitioner. He did not receive any money from the petitioner, what to talk of Rs. 3 lacs. He never agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner or get it registered. He never entered into any agreement to sell with Dev Raj Garg nor did he ever obtain any money from him. Dev Raj Garg had forged agreement to sell alleged to have been executed by him. He has filed criminal complaint against Dev Raj Garg in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. He has been cheated by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 to enter into agreement to sell with him which is apparent from the memo of understanding dated 4.5.95 entered into between respondent No. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 2 has been cheated by respondent No. 3 who is property dealer. Respondent No. 2 never dealt with the petitioner regarding the alleged agreement to sell. Respondent No. 2 had told everything to respondent No. 3 and he did not withhold anything from respondent No. 3. Petitioner is a stranger qua him and respondent No. 3 and if the petitioner has any grouse, he has against respondent No. 3. He had received only Rs. 1 lac from respondent No. 3 with whom he had agreed to sell the house in question. He never received Rs. 3 lacs. Instead respondent No. 3 by deceit and fraud got signature of respondent No. 2 on the alleged agreement to sell without paying Rs. 3 lacs to him and respondent No. 3 got the signatures of the petitioner forged on the alleged agreement to sell. Amount of Rs. 2 lacs was retained by respondent No. 3. He was rightly granted anticipatory bail by the court on the premise that the dispute involved was of civil nature. He has not misused the concession of bail. He has joined investigation. He is the victim of cheating due to collusion of respondent No. 3 with the petitioner. His signatures were obtained on the alleged agreement to sell and also on the alleged receipt by respondent No. 3 by fraud.