VIMMY @ ANJU AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of above mentioned three revision petitions filed on behalf of Vimmy @ Anju Aggarwal, Vinay Kumar and Paramjit Singh challenging judgment dated 10.7.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby appeals filed by them against judgment dated 6.11.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, have been dismissed.

(2.) The FIR, in the present case, was lodged at the instance of Pavitpal Singh, who alleged that he had met one property dealer namely Pardip Kumar who told him that one plot measuring 1766 square yards situated at Barewal Awana, District Ludhiana had been shown to him by one seller. It is alleged that Pardip Kumar called the said seller Vinay Kumar Dhir on telephone, who turned up along with Paramjit Singh and his wife Vimmy and who showed the plot in question to complainant. The complainant became interested in the said plot. The aforesaid persons were asked to bring the documents in respect of the property in question. On 9.5.2002, the aforesaid Vinay Kumar Dhir, Paramjit Singh and Vimmy came to the office of Pardip Kumar and represented that they are in dire need of money and that they will get the sale deed registered immediately and thus a deal was struck for an amount of Rs. 21 lacs. The accused, however, did not get the documents and it was stated that Anju Aggarwal had got sale deed executed and registered in favour of Vinay Kumar Dhir and that the sale deed had been sent for effecting mutation. It was further stated that Anju Aggarwal is with them. Vimmy @ Anju Aggarwal also endorsed this fact. The accused stated that they would furnish the sale deed in favour of Vinay Kumar Dhir and also the original sale deed in the name of Anju Aggarwal and believing the said representation to be correct, an agreement for sale of property in favour of the complainant was entered into. The complainant gave an amount of Rs. 20 lacs to the accused in the presence of Pardip Kumar and witness Jagdev Singh. The accused stated that they would hand over the sale deeds and the mutation to the complainant shortly but despite the complainant having made several telephone calls subsequently to the accused, they kept on dilly dallying the matter and did not get the sale deed registered.

(3.) It is further the case of the complainant that on 7.8.2002, the complainant read a news item in newspaper "Punjab Kesari" that some persons had sold off a plot situated at Hambra road by way of forged sale deed and upon inquiry, the complainant came to know that the said persons who had effected the said forged sale deed had been arrested. The complainant along with Pardip Kumar went to the Police Station where they saw Vinay Kumar Dhir and Paramjit Singh in police custody. Paramjit Singh had been arrested but his name was mentioned as Ashok Kumar. The complainant informed the police that the said so called Ashok Kumar had met the complainant and had represented himself to be Paramjit Singh and was accompanied by a lady who disclosed herself to be Anju Aggarwal and had sold off the plot in question to him and taken an amount of Rs. 20 lacs as earnest money.