SANDEEP GOYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned order dated 1.8.2000, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer, upheld the order dated 28.4.97, whereby Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Ajmer, ordered to frame charge under Section 420 IPC against the accused petitioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the complainant respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against accused petitioner and one Smt. Meena Kumari to the effect that the accused petitioner executed an agreement on 13.1.1996 for the sale of plot No. A-96, in favour of respondent No. 2 and received an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. The accused petitioner assured the complainant that this plot was free from all encumbrances and he would hand-over the possession at the time of sale-deed being registered. Subsequently all these facts were found untrue as a litigation regarding this plot was already going on between the previous owner Smt. Meena Kumari and Ravi Kumar and other person Vijendra Singh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused petitioner referred Annexure 7, which is agreement executed by accused petitioner in favour of the complainant respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that all the facts regarding agreement of this plot by Smt. Meena Kumari in favour of the accused petitioner were mentioned and thus no material fact was suppressed. It was also contended that facts regarding previous litigation about this plot were not known to the accused petitioner. He also referred Annexure 5 which is the allotment letter issued by U.I.T. Ajmer in the name of Smt. Meena Kumari and Smt. Meena Kumari admittedly exhibited (executed ?) Annexure 4 in favour of accused petitioner and thus offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. It was also submitted that the complainant respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement in question and the same was decreed in favour of the complainant vide judgment dated 26.7.2002. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant respondent contended that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed as revision has already been dismissed and as a matter of fact this a second revision. Reliance is placed upon Jesa Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1996(3) W.L.C. 541. I have considered this judgment and am of the view that this petition has been heard on merits, therefore, this petition is being decided on merits. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by both the courts below and both the courts below categorically came to this conclusion that the accused petitioner did not disclose certain material facts to the complainant respondent at the time of this agreement and thus the offence under Section 420 IPC was prima facie made out. I find no infirmity or illegality in the said orders. Thus this petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed