Dharma Ahirwar vs Gurnam Singh

G.S. Solanki, J.—Heard finally.

The petitioner has filed this petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code''), being aggrieved by order dated 30.1.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Sagar (MP) in Criminal Revision No. 212/2012 whereby the Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in Criminal Case No. 9716/2011 for framing the charge under Sections 420 of IPC.

Facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that complainant/respondent had filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class with an allegation that he had purchased some land from the accused/petitioner. After sometime, the accused/petitioner again came to the complainant/respondent and stated that he wants to sell some more land and had taken an advance of Rs. 20,000/- from him. Thereafter, the accused/petitioner had taken two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each as advance but he had not executed the sale deed of the land in favour of the complainant/respondent. The respondent inquired about the aforesaid land, he found that there is no land in his name. He filed a private complaint before the trial Court. Learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of complainant/respondent and his witness Swarnsingh (PW2).

After recording the evidence, summons has been issued against the accused/petitioner for appearing before the trial Court. On appearing of the accused/petitioner, learned Magistrate has framed the charge u/s 420 of IPC against him by order dated 28.6.2012. Same has been challenged by the accused/petitioner in a revision petition but same has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.1.2013, hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial Court as well as Revisional Court have committed illegality in framing the charge as well as affirming the charge u/s 420 of IPC against the petitioner. He further submitted that it was a case of civil transaction between the parties. Cheques issued by the respondent were dishonored, therefore, no case is made out u/s 420 of IPC against the accused/petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that right from inception, the intention of the accused/petitioner was to deceive the complainant/respondent, therefore, there is a strong prima-facie case against the accused/petitioner and trial Court as well as revisional Court have not committed any illegality in passing the orders, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, private complaint and other material on record.

It reveals from the record that on the date of transaction, accused/petitioner was not holding any land in his name. Despite this fact, he had taken advance money for selling the alleged land from the complainant/respondent, in these circumstances, the right from inception intention of the accused/petitioner was to deceive the complainant/respondent. Thus, there is a strong prima-facie case against the accused/petitioner, which requires trial.

It is well established principle of law that at the time of framing the charge, facts and evidence on record could not be appreciated meticulously. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Courts below have not committed any illegality. It is not a case in which if the impugned order is allowed to be continued it would amount to abuse of process of Law.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case in which interference under inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted.

Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.