Rupendra Singh Bohara and Others vs J.M. Dehradun and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2165 of 2005 pending before J.M. First, Dehradun u/s 420/120B IPC and summoning order dated 8.12.2005 passed thereon also be quashed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant-Pankaj Puri is in the profession of Real Estate. Petitioner Rupendra Singh Bohra met with the complainant and informed him that his brothers Captain Ravindra Singh Bohra and Devendra Singh Bohra are willing to sell the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 132-L and 132-V. The accused shown their lands to the complainant and received Rs. 10.50 lacs in advance and the date of execution of sale deed was informed as 31.1.2006. But on 2.11.2005, petitioner Rupendra Singh asked the complainant that the said land has already been sold to someone else and now the sale deed cannot be executed. Then the complainant came to know that the intention of the accused was not good since beginning and they wanted to cheat the complainant and due to which they induced the complainant to buy the said land and also received Rs. 10.50 lacs in advance. The complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while the witnesses, Abhinay Kumar and Neeraj Puri were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and certain documents were also produced in documentary evidence. After analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the entire evidence adduced before it, learned J.M. First Dehradun vide order dated 8.12.2005 took cognizance and summoned the petitioners to face trial u/s 420/120B IPC. Assailing the summoning order and the entire proceedings, this petition has been preferred.

A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No. 2 denying the averments made in the application.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the court below has erred while taking cognizance against them. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2, the statement of the complainant and that of witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., who in their statements have amply corroborated the prosecution story, the offences punishable u/s 420/120B IPC, are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has rightly took the cognizance and accordingly, rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial.

It was next argued on behalf of the petitioner that the sale deed was not executed because the applicants were not competent to perform the sale deed for the whole of the land inasmuchas 1/4th share of the said land belonged to their sister. I again do not find any force in this argument. If the applicants were well aware that a part of the dispute land belongs to their sister, they ought not to have proceeded to induce the complainant to purchase the entire land and this fact itself shows the mal-intention on their part. So far as the notice sent by Smt. Sharda Makin (sister of petitioners) through her Advocate to the complainant is concerned, in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it has been stated that the petitioners have been restrained not to sell 1/4th of share of the property but the remaining 3/4th portion of the said land could be disposed of by the petitioners but the petitioners even did not make any efforts to perform their part and to honour their commitment. Thus, in this way it is ample clear the petitioners since the very beginning cheated the complainant and even they also grabbed Rs. 10.50 lacs given by the complainant to them as a token of advance. In the entire scenario of the case, prima facie it reveals that the complainant has been cheated by the petitioners and their intention since the very inception was not good.

Even the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 03.04.2006 is vacated.