NARAYAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anoop Dhand, for the applicant, Mr. 6.S. Gautam for the complainant and Ms. Soniya Shandilya, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) Mr. Anoop Dhand has submitted that initially by Agreement dated 3.3.2012 the complainant had sold the property to the applicant through an agreement to sell. According to the agreement, the property was sold to the applicant for a sum of Rs.3 lac, but the applicant has paid Rs.1.50 lac to the complainant. It was agreed that the remaining amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. However, the complainant did not get the sale-deed registered. Instead, on 14.3.2012 he sold the same property to Smt. Mali Devi. Since the complainant was not getting the sale-deed registered, on 14.2.2014 the applicant filed a civil suit for specific performance. He also filed a criminal complainant against the complainant on 11.2.2014. As a counter blast to the legal remedies persued by the applicant, the present F.I.R. was lodged by the complaint, Kailash Chand Kabra on 9.3.2014. Despite the fact the entire case is a civil dispute between the two parties, the applicant was arrested on 10.12.2014. He is languishing in the jail ever since then. Lastly, the entire case is based on documentary evidence. Therefore, to keep the applicant incarcerated, would not serve any fruitful purpose.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Gautam, the learned Counsel for the complainant, has claimed that once the property was sold to Smt. Mali Devi, she had asked the applicant to vacate the premises, and had filed a case against the applicant. Even in the notice served by Smt. Mali Devi upon the applicant, he never claimed that there was an agreement to sell dated 3.3.2012 between him and the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is justified in claiming that agreement to sell dated 3.3.2012 is a forged document.