MOOLCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a defence taken in a civil suit or testimony of the accused in a civil court vest a right in the investigating agency to re-initiate criminal proceedings in which Final Report in negative form has been accepted by the competent court of jurisdiction, especially when the protest petition filed by the complainant was rejected, is an issue before this court.

(2.) Bone of contention in the present case is a piece of land qua which agreement to sell (Annx.1) dated 12.10.2005 was executed.

(3.) Petitioners, sellers/executant of the agreement to sell, agreed to sell 1/3rd share of their land in the undivided house which admittedly was not partitioned. On 22.7.2006 complainantrespondent No.2 had sent a notice (Annx.2) calling upon the petitioners to execute the sale deed in pursuance of agreement to sell (Annx.1) dated 12.10.2005. The notice (Annx.2) was replied by the counsel for the petitioners. The said reply to the notice is Annexure-3. In para-8 of the reply to notice (Annx.3) it was stated that the petitioners are ready and willing to execute the sale deed in pursuance to agreement to sell (Annx.1) and therefore, they called the complainant-purchaser on 1.8.2006 between 10.30 AM to 4.30 PM in the office of Sub Registrar, Beawar, for execution of the sale deed. Case of the petitioners before this court is that in pursuance of reply (Annx.3) to notice, respondent No.2 purchaser never turned up.