Rakesh Kumar Kedia @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan,

Jaipur whereby revision petition filed by the respondent was allowed and order dated 27.10.2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur was set aside.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that complainant agreed to purchase flat No.201 which was approximately 2000 square feet. He paid

Rs.11,22,500/- through five cheques, the flat was sold at the rate of Rs.16.50/- per square feet. Complainant was not able to pay the balance amount,

he being related to the petitioner, petitioner agreed to give three plots in the name of wife and two sister-in-laws of Naresh Gupta, Director of Shivam

Drugs Pvt. Ltd. It is contended that relatives of Naresh Gupta gave affidavit which was notarized and the affidavit bears the photographs and the

details of cheques which were originally given by the complainant for purchase of flat.

It is contended that the amount of Rs.11,22,500/- was paid in December, 2005, present complaint was filed in August, 2008. No suit for specific

performance was filed by the company. There is no mention in the complaint about the total value of the flat and as to why the balance amount was

not paid by the complainant.

It is also contended that the Magistrate Court after taking into account the entire documents discharged the petitioner. The revisional Court without

applying its mind in a cursory manner allowed the revision petition and remanded the case back to the Magistrate for deciding it afresh in light of the

observations made by the revisional Court.

It is furthercontended that a civil dispute was given a look of criminal case. When complainant failed to file a suit for specific performance, he has

approached the criminal Court by filing a complaint. It is contended that since the amount was adjusted in the sale consideration of relatives of the

complainant, the matter was settled and the possession of plots were handed over to relatives of the complainant, there was no dispute pending

between the parties and there was no justification for the revisional Court to remand the case to the Magistrate for deciding it afresh.

It is contended that Ex.P-1 was the document which was produced by the complainant himself on which the rate per square feet of the constructed

area was mentioned as Rs.1600/-. It is contended that complainant has not mentioned in his complaint, the price of the flat, rate of the flat and what

steps he had taken for getting the sale deed of the flat registered in his favour. It is also contended that relatives of complainant have filed separate

complaints and suits with regard to the plots that were given in lieu of the flat.

Counsel for the complainant has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that petitioner had sold plots to relatives of complainant posing

himself as power of attorney of a person who had expired prior to the date of execution of sale deed. It is also contended that petitioner has forged the

documents and the sale deed executed in favour of relatives of complainant. The sale deeds were executed in absence of the relatives, which is a

contravention of the proviso of the Registration Act.

It is also contended that the revisional Court has not committed any error in remanding the case for deciding it afresh after hearing the parties and

taking into account the observations made by the revisional Court. It is also contended that the affidavit of relatives of the complainant has no bearing

in the present case and they have also been forged by the petitioner having obtained the signatures of the relatives on blank papers. 9. I have

considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Magistrate Court and the complaint preferred by

the complainant. Admittedly, five cheques of Rs.11,22,500/- were given to the petitioner way back in December, 2005. There is no written agreement

between the parties with regard to Flat No.201, however, in the document Ex.P-1 which was exhibited by the petitioner himself, rate of per square

feet is mentioned as 1600/-, the total area of the flat is approximately 2000 per square feet, meaning thereby that the flat was of Rs.32,00,000/-

approximately as per the brochure submitted by the complainant himself.

Complainant, however, in Court has given evidence that he had agreed to purchase flat for Rs.15,00,000/- but as to from where he has arrived at

this figure, counsel for the complainant is not in a position to state before the Court.

It is further clear that the money was paid in 2005, complainant filed this complaint in August, 2008 after a lapse of more than two years and eight

months. Complaint is not having any details with regard to the price of the flat, there is no averment with regard to the attempt made by the

complainant for getting the sale deed registered. It is also evident that separate complaints and suits have been filed by the relatives of complainant

with regard to the sale deed executed by the petitioner.

As far as the present case is concerned, the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence and at the most it is a civil dispute. Ex.P-1

was the most relevant document which was properly considered by the Magistrate Court for discharging the petitioner. There was no justification for

the Court below to have allowed the revision petition and remand the case back to the Magistrate Court for re-consideration.

This Court is not inclined to go into the question of five cheques being adjusted against three flats that were purchased by the relatives of the

complainant as the lis regarding that is pending before the Court below and relatives of the complainant are not party in the present litigation.

As far as the present complaint is concerned, the same does not disclose commission of any offence. Complaint is belated and a civil dispute has

been given a look of a criminal dispute. The Magistrate Court has not committed any error in discharging the petitioner.

In view of the same, the criminal revision petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the revisional Court dated

10.07.2018 is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Magistrate dated 27.10.2016 is affirmed.