BAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 23rd September passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Jammu, whereby charge has been framed against him under Sections 420, 427 and 448 RPC, as the same is the abuse of the process of law. The petitioner also seeks quashment of the proceedings initiated against him by virtue of the impugned order and for discharging the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 268 Cr. P.C in FIR No. 25/2016 dated 18th March, 2016 under Sections 448, 427/34 RPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 18th March, 2016, an FIR No. 25/2016 was lodged by one Mrs. Suman Bansal through authorized caretaker-Girish Arora S/o Pratap Chand Arora in Police Station, Janipur, Jammu for commission of offences mentioned under Sections 427, 448 and 34 RPC, whereby she alleged that she has purchased a plot of land bearing No. 48 measuring 40'x80" along with strip measuring 1560 sq.ft. situated in Sector-3, Roop Nagar, Jammu vide an Agreement registered with the office of said Sub-Registrar, Municipal Magistrate, Jammu on 10th March, 2016. She further alleged that since the execution of the deed, she is in peaceful possession of double storeyed house built upon the abovesaid land. The said Girish Arora is authorized by her to be the caretaker of the abovesaid house, who visited the same for the purpose of its routine maintenance, whereupon he found that the locks of the main gate and main door had been broken upon and around four unknown persons were sitting inside the house having trespassed into the said property. It was further noticed by the said Girish Arora that the unknown persons had removed the furniture and fixtures from the house and immediately after being informed by Mr. Girish Arora, the complainant, i.e., Suman Bansal has filed the complaint before the respondents.

(3.) The police investigated the matter and later on, challan was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial, Jammu under Sections 448, 427/34 RPC and the same was transferred to the Court of Sub-Judge, Jammu. The matter was argued over the charges before the Sub-Judge, Jammu and during the course of arguments, petitioner categorically stated that both the offences leveled against the petitioner are not made out prima-facie. The petitioner had further argued that after the execution of the abovesaid deed of conveyance with the complainant, the said Conveyance Deed was rescinded/dissolved and the sale consideration of Rs. 41.00 Lacs was transferred by the petitioner in the Account of the husband of the complainant, namely, Dewan Chand Bansal. Copy of the bank statement of the accused (Annexure-B) reflects the transfer of money in the Bank Account of Dewan Chand Bansal.