RAMESH SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. arising out of Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 621 of 2012 dated 20.06.2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2456 of 2012 registered u/s. 420, 467 & 468 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of said case pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. It appears that O.P. No. 2 namely Ashwini Kumar Beotra has filed a complaint case No. 1350 of 2012 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad and said complaint case has been sent to Bank More Police Station u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. after that Bank More RS. Case No. 621 of 2012 has been registered against the accused persons/petitioners.

(2.) The facts which appear from the complaint, in brief, are that the original accused No. 2 was known to the complainant since the mid of 1980's and they were engaged in coal business from that point of time. In due course the family of accused persons/petitioners and complainant developed cordial relation and they had been helping each other as and when required. It is disclosed that the accused persons/petitioners had expressed their desire to sale their 42 decimals of land pertaining to plot No. 915, Khata No. 80 within mouza Dhanbad No. 51, Telephone Exchange Road, Dhanbad. The complainant become interested in purchasing the said land and after negotiation paid Rs. 3,20,000/- as an advance whereafter agreement for sale dated 12.03.1991 was executed by the petitioners and their mother Savitri Devi Sachdeva. The accused persons/petitioners have also made it clear that the property was initially purchased by their father late Sukhdev Sachdeva who died on 19.12.1977 leaving behind Savitri Devi Sachdeva (widow), three sons namely Ramesh Sachdeva, Rakesh Sachdeva and Rajan Sachdeva (petitioners) and three daughters namely Asha Taneja (widow of late Dharmvir Taneja) Smt. Sneh Arya (wife of their Pramod Arya) and Dr. Sabita Gulati (wife of Shri Brij Mohal Gulati).

(3.) When the complainant enquired from the accused persons/petitioners as to whether the sisters would join them as co-vendors in the proposed agreement for sale, the accused persons stated that their three married sister had relinquished their share in the subject property having regard to the fact that they were given just and sufficient share in the property and assets of their father in the shape of dowry etc. during their marriage and hence accused persons and their mother alone are competent to transfer the subject land. It is further alleged that the accused persons made the complainant to spend lacs of rupees to contest a frivolous revenue case filed against them and also the dispute occasioned between them and Birendra Kumar Bhatia involving part of the subject land and on that pretext too they did not execute sale deed in favour of the complainant. On one ground or the other the accused persons kept postponing the execution of sale deed and that compelled the complainant and other plaintiffs to file Title Suit No. 104/2008 against accused persons/petitioners for specific performance of contract against agreement dated 12.03.1991 in the Court of Sub Judge, Dhanbad. In the said title suit the petitioners appeared and filed their written statement. In course of pendency of said title suit one of the sister of the petitioners namely Dr. Sabita Gulati filed a petition on 24.02.2011 claiming her share in the property and to permit her to contest the suit as necessary party. The non-filing of any rejoinder or protest against petition filed by Dr. Sabita Gulati made the complainant convinced that they are having hands in gloves and he felt him self-cheated and lodged this complaint on the basis of which present case has been instituted.