MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.7.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 7 Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 268/2004 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sec. 420, I.P.C. against the petitioner and one Prakash Chandra and summoned them by bailable warrant of Rs. 5,000.00 each.

(2.) According to facts, there is land situated in village Punjala of Jodhpur district and petitioner's wife and brother are owners of the said land. As per the petitioner, he was authorised by his wife and brother to make any transaction in regard to the said land. The complainant is a property dealer and a complaint was filed by him before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur in Nov. 1999 alleging that he and petitioner both are dealing in property transactions, therefore, the complainant knew Mahesh Chandra and one Prakash Chandra, who was partner of Mahesh Chandra. The complainant alleged that Mahesh Chandra, Prakash Chandra and one Pushpendra Singh Rathore introduced to him a scheme of plots in village Magra Punjala and offered him to purchase some of the plots. The complainant purchased land measuring.1500 sq. yards for a sum of Rs..3,00,000.00. The land in question was purchased by the complainant under an agreement with Pushpendra Singh Rathore. Before this transaction, the said land was purchased by Pushpendra Singh Rathore from petitioner Mahesh Chandra under agreement wherein it is stated that he is owner of the land and is duly authorised to enter into any transaction in respect of the said land. According to the complainant, he has purchased the said 1500 sq. yard land from Pushpendra Singh under agreement and paid. the sale consideration to him; but, due to illegal motive the registry of the said land was not executed in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore and Pushpendra Singh is also not executing the sale-deed in his favour. Thus, the contention of the complainant in the complaint is that initially agreement was arrived at for sale in between the petitioner and Pushpendra Singh Rathore and, thereafter, under agreement Pushpendra Singh Rathore sold the said land to the complainant and it is further alleged that the complainant purchased the said land under impression of good faith and assurance of the petitioner that he is owner of the said land and he will execute the sale-deed in favour of any person including Pushpendra Singh Rathore, but, in fact, the petitioner is not owner of the said land which is in the names of his wife and brother; meaning thereby, to cheat the complainant, the petitioner initially made agreement in favour of Pushpendra Singh Rathore showing himself as owner of the property and thereafter, Pushpendra Singh Rathore agreed to sell the land in favour of the complainant and only to cheat the complainant this transaction was entered into by the petitioner. ,

(3.) According to facts of the case, after aforesaid agreement, complainant further sold the property to one Prakash Chandra but no sale-deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of Pushpendra Singh, therefore, Pushpendra Singh was not in a position to execute sale-deed in favour of non-petitioner No. 2 complainant with whom he has entered into the agreement. Prakash Chandra has also filed F.I.R. against the complainant Naresh Surana and said F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Udai Mandir, Jodhpur bearing No. 479/1999 and upon the complaint filed by complainant Naresh Surana against petitioner Mahesh Chandra, the police registered F.I.R. No. 488/1999. After investigation in both the cases, the police filed negative F.R. Thereafter, protest petition was filed by the complainant in this case and Prakash Chandra filed protest petition in Case No. 479/1999 against the complainant. The learned trial Court accepted the FR in favour of Prakash Chandra and petitioner and took cognizance against complainant Naresh Surana. Both the orders were challenged before this Court by way of filing revision petitions. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 99/2001 was filed against order dated 18.11.2000 and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 305/2000 was filed against order of taking cognizance dated 31.3.2000. The said revision petitions were decided by this Court vide common order dated 7.11.2001 and dismissed the revision petition against order dated 31.3.2000 filed by complainant Naresh Surana and he is facing trial whereas in another revision petition filed by petitioner against acceptance of the F.R., this Court set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and matter was remanded to the trial Court with direction to proceed afresh according to law after hearing both the parties.