BHERU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the accused Bheru Singh against the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road, dated 6-11-81 by which cognizance for offence under sections 406, 420 and 468 I.P.C. has been taken against him.

(2.) Briefly stated that the facts of the case are these: According to the complainant Babu Bhai, the accused Bheru Singh had entered into an agreement to sell a house for a sum of Rs. 85,000/- to him on 31-7-80. The description of the house is given in para 1 of the complaint. According to the complainant, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was received by the accused as earnest money in pursuance of this agreement and a document was executed by Bheru Singh to evidence this agreement on 31-7-80, It was agreed that the house will be got vacated from the tenants and the sale deed would be executed by 30-12-80 by receiving the remaining amount of Rs. 76,000/- and delivering the possession of the house to the complainant Babu Bhai. His case further is that, however, this could not be done by 30-12-80 as the house was not vacated by the tenant and, therefore, Bheru Singh again executed an agreement in his favour on 26-12-80 agreeing to deliver the possession and get the sale deed registered by 30-4-81. It appears that the tenant vacated the house by 30-4-81 but the agreement was not executed and the possession was not handed over to the complainant whereupon he served a notice on Bheru Sigh on 1-4-81 calling upon him to execute the sale deed, receive the balance of the sale consideration and handover the possession to him. The complainant goes on to state that Bheru Singh did not do any of these things. On the other hand, he granted a lease of this property to a third party on 11-4-81 and by his reply dated 15-4-81, he while admitting the execution of the two agreements, denied the receipt of Rs. 9,000/-. He also alleged in the reply that as a matter of fact, there was no agreement for the sale of this house but the so called agreement was only a fictitious document entered into between the parties as a device to get the house vacated from the tenant as according to the accused Bheru Singh, the complainant was a friend of both Bheru Singh as well the tenant. He also stated in the reply that the house did not exclusively belong to him but was a joint Hindu family property in which, his widowed daughter-in-law find grandson had also a right. Thereupon the present complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate on 24-4-81. The learned Magistrate sent this complaint for investigations u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the police station Mount Abu. The police after making investigations, filed a final report stating that it was only a case of civil nature relating to a breach of contract. The complainant also filed a protest petition against this final report. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties, took cognizance against the accused as aforesaid. Hence this revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the learned P.P. and have gone through the record.