MOHINDER SINGH RANDHAWA Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent Harbhajan Singh filed a complaint against the petitioners-Mohinder Singh alias Bawa and Kanwaljit Kaur before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar (annexure P-1) under Sections 415, 418, 419, 420, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. alleging as follows :- Gurmit Singh Randhawa and his wife Harbarinder Kaur are at present residents of England and have authorised Harbhajan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) as their General Attorney. The complainant is well conversant with the facts and the fraud committed by the accused. The first accused (first petitioner) is the husband of the second accused (second petitioner). She received the draft and the cash from Gurmit Singh and Harbarinder Kaur. The first petitioner-accused poses himself to be the owner of Kothi No. 1116, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Jalandhar and entered into an agreement dated 29.4.1992 to sell the said house for Rs. 21 lacs. At that time, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was parted by Gurmit Singh and Harbarinder Kaur. The complainant was the attesting witness. The sale deed was to be executed by the petitoners-accused in favour of the complainant on or before 31.7.1992 on receipt of the balance of Rs. 11,45,000/- before the Sub Registrar, Jalandhar. Gurmit Singh and Harbarinder Kaur authorised the complainant to get the sale deed executed in their favour and they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Legal notices were issued but the petitoners-accused did not care to appear before the Sub Registrar to perform their part of the contract. A civil suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed and is pending before the Sub Judge, Jalandhar. The petitoners-accused hatched a conspiracy to defeat the rights of the principal of the complainant and filed a civil suit against Gurmit Singh, Harbarinder Kaur and the complainant for declaration that the sale deed dated 7.7.1992 and registered on 7.10.1992 was illegal, void and the result of fraud and not binding upon the second accused. The petitioner accused Mohinder Singh had been assuring that he is the full-fledged owner of the house in question and had authorised the second accused to execute the sale deed in favour of Gurmit Singh and Harbarinder Kaur. On this assurance, Rs. 9,55,000/- have been received by the petitioner-accused. On 15.7.1993, the complainant went and asked the accused to execute the sale deed, but the wife of the accused disclosed that he is the owner to the extent of 1/5th share, which establishes the fraud committed by the petitioners-accused. When the complainant went to the police for registering a case against the accused, the police did not register the case.

(2.) THE petitioners-accused have, therefore, approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint (annexure P-1) and the consequential proceedings alleging as follows :-

(3.) THE first respondent-complainant filed a reply containing the following allegations apart from the other allegations as are found in the complaint :-