SATINDER MAHAJAN Vs. JASWANT RAI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant (applicant herein) has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Amritsa, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant-complainant against the accused-respondents was dismissed.

(2.) The applicant-complainant had filed a criminal complaint for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC filed by the complainant, inter-alia, with the allegations that he was one of the partners in the partnership firm M/s Vivek Prints; that accused-respondent Jaswant Rai Sharma was also one of the partners therein; Jaswant Rai Sharma being an educated person was given a General Power of Attorney, so as to look after the property affairs i.e. sale and purchases, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar; that Jaswant Rai Sharma informed the complainant that he had sold part of the land of the firm leaving the balance land of the firm approximately 1468 sq. yards; that despite repeated requests, the complainant did not produce the revenue record regarding the said balance land and kept the matter lingering on one pretext or the other; that he ultimately retired on 26.04.2006; that in the month of October, 2007, the complainant was called by the Income Tax Department and asked about the land measuring 1469 square yards sold to accused Nos. 2 and 3; that the complainant showed his inability and knowledge, but the department kept on asking him regarding the sale of the land; that after obtaining certified copies of the sale deeds, it was disclosed that respondent-Jaswant Rai Sharma in connivance with accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had transferred the land measuring 1469 sq. yards (approx.) in the name of accused-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without the consent and knowledge of the complainant; that the said sale was effected without passing of any consideration or if any, that was also a throwaway price and that in this manner, accused No.1 had cheated the complainant and other partners of the firm.

(3.) In his preliminary evidence, the complainant had stepped into witness box as CW1 besides tendering documentary evidence as Exs.C4 to C.7.