GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dtd. 23/10/2018 (Annexure P-1); passed by the SDJM, Kalka, vide which, an application filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. by the complainant for leading additional evidence in Criminal Complaint No. COMI/30/13 dtd. 21/8/2013, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 506, 120-B of the IPC, Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula, titled as Gian Chand vs. Tarsem Gupta and another, seeking to compare the signatures of Jagat Ram Singla on the disputed documents/SPA dtd. 29/8/2005 and affidavit dtd. 31/7/2006 with his standard signatures on the original sale deed dtd. 20/12/2015 registered at Sub-Registrar, Kalka by a handwriting expert; was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2/accused Tarsem Gupta claimed that he is the owner in possession of land to the extent of 8/209 share i.e. 8 Biswas out of land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 12/13/14, Khasra No. 53, total measuring 10 Bighas and 9 Biswas, on the basis of mutation No. 781 and also claimed that he has purchased the said land in the name of his father-in-law Jagat Ram Singla and on the basis of the same, an agreement to sell dtd. 29/4/2006 was entered into between respondent No.2/accused Tarsem Gupta and complainant/petitioner Gian Chand with regard to the said land and an amount of Rs.19.80 Lakh was received by the accused persons as earnest money. It was agreed between the parties that the sale deed shall be executed by the accused/respondent No. 2 Tarsem Gupta as GPA of his father-in-law on or before 31/7/2006, however, on 9/5/2006, the complainant/petitioner came to know that land in question is under acquisition by the State of Haryana and cannot be sold by the accused persons.

(3.) The complainant/petitioner, after the summoning of the accused persons/private respondents, is leading pre-charge evidence.