Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 301 (UTT)

Hari Ram v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-08-05

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") has been preferred for quashing charge framed on 26.09.2019, in Criminal Case No. 887 of 2015, State vs. Hari Ram and Another, by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short 'the Case'). Both the petitioners have been charged under Sections 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of the petition, briefly stated, are as hereunder:- Informant in the case (respondent no.2 herein) had an acquaintance with the petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary as he was his patient. In the month of March, 2014, petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary approached the informant and expressed his willingness to sell his land as he was in need of money. Informant was reluctant to purchase the land. But, the petitioner no.1 and his family members repeatedly requested the informant to purchase the land. Thereafter, the informant inquired about the documents of the proposed land and agreed to purchase it. An agreement to sale was executed and Rs. 75 Lakh was given as an advance to the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary by the informant. It was also agreed between the parties that within one month from the date of agreement, certain documents would be given by the petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary to the informant, but, he did not give those documents. After four months, informant on 29.09.2014 sent a notice to the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary but, he refused to receive it. It created doubt in the mind of the informant. He approached petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary, who agreed to execute the sale deed from 13.10.2014, but, he did not turn up at the Registry office, where the informant waited the whole day for him to come. Again, the informant requested the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary to execute the sale deed and 27.10.2014 was fixed as a date when Registry would be executed. On that date, when the informant visited the house of the petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary, according to the FIR, the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary and other persons abused, assaulted and tried to kill him and threatened him to life. On that date, when the informant visited the house of the petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary, according to the FIR, the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary and other persons abused, assaulted and tried to kill him and threatened him to life. FIR states that both the petitioners fraudulently and deceitfully cheated the informant and took Rs. 75 Lakh from him. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against both the petitioners and proceedings of the case instituted. 4. It has also been argued during the course of the arguments that when FIR was filed, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was also filed by the petitioners and subsequently, when cognizance was taken, another petition under Section 482 of the Code being C482 No. 906 of 2015 was preferred by the petitioners (first petition). The first petition was dismissed, but, the Court observed "petitioner may seek discharge at the time of framing of charge. It is further made clear that if petitioners failed to surrender before Learned Magistrate on or before 28.11.2015, learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law". Proceeding of the case initiated further and at the stage of framing of the charge, arguments were heard and by an order dated 02.08.2019, the Court discharged the petitioners of the charge under Sections 406 and 327 IPC. The Court observed that there are sufficient grounds for framing the charge under Sections 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Subsequently, on 26.09.2019, charges were framed. This is sought to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to the FIR and argue that the FIR itself reveals that if any intention to cheat was there, it was not initially. Learned counsel raised the following points:- (1)The petitioner no. 1 wanted to sell but the informant himself had shelved his project as his partners withdrew from his association. (2)The investigation is questioned because FIR was lodged on 07.12.2014 and with a greatest speed, charge sheet was submitted on 20.01.2015. 6. Learned counsel would repeatedly argue that the petitioners had all intentions to sell the land to the informant, they are still willing to do it, but, it is the informant who is not fulfilling the promise made by him. 6. Learned counsel would repeatedly argue that the petitioners had all intentions to sell the land to the informant, they are still willing to do it, but, it is the informant who is not fulfilling the promise made by him. It is argued that it may be a case of mere breach of contract with no element of criminality in it. Therefore, no offence, as such, has been made out. 7. With regard to petitioner no.2 Sri Ram Chaudhary, it is argued that this person had not executed any agreement. He had no role in the transactions, which was made between the petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary and the informant, but, the learned Court below committed an error in framing charges against both the petitioners. It is argued that the petitioners ought to have been discharged, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the cases of Ram Biraji Devi and Another Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 669 , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2000) 4 SCC 168 , B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee and Another, (2007) 13 SCC 107 , Sushil Sethi and Another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 240 , Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. And Another, (2005) 10 SCC 228 . 9. In the case of Ram Biraji (supra), the facts were related to sale of a plot, for which, agreement was executed, but, subsequently, the transfer was denied. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, in the last sentence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed 'the version of the complainant is self-contradictory, and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, involving them in the commission of offences.' In paragraph 10, the Court further observed as hereunder; "10. The learned Magistrate in his order has categorically stated that the perusal of the complaint would make it clear that there was a dispute in respect of sale and purchase of land between the parties. In our view even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. In our view even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Neither any guilty intention can be attributed to them nor there can possibly be any intention on their part to deceive the complainant. No criminal case is made out by the complainant against the appellants in his complaint and in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded by the Magistrate before taking of the cognizance of the alleged offences. The averments of the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded by the Magistrate would amount to civil liability inter se the parties and no criminal liability can be attributed to the appellants on the basis of the material on record..................................................................." 10. In the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the difference between a mere breach of contract and offence of cheating and observed as hereunder; "15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed." 11. In the case of B. Suresh Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "For the purpose of establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. In the case of B. Suresh Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "For the purpose of establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. In a case of this nature, it is permissible in law to consider the stand taken by a party in a pending civil litigation. We do not, however, mean to lay down a law that the liability of a person cannot be both civil and criminal at the same time. But when a stand has been taken in a complaint petition which is contrary to or inconsistent with the stand taken by him in a civil suit, it assumes significance." (Para 13) 12. In the case of Sushil Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "In any case, there are no specific allegations and averments in the complaint that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of entering into the contract. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be said that even a prima facie case for the offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out." (Para 8.1) 13. In the case of Anil Mahajan (supra), the Hon'ble Court further emphasized the words 'cheating', 'deceive', 'cheat' and observed as hereunder; "8. The substance of the complaint is to be seen. Mere use of the expression "cheating" in the complaint is of no consequence. Except mention of the words "deceive" and "cheat" in the complaint filed before the Magistrate and "cheating" in the complaint filed before the police, there is no averment about the deceit, cheating or fraudulent intention of the accused at the time of entering into MOU wherefrom it can be inferred that the accused had the intention to deceive the complainant to pay..........." 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant would submit that all the arguments, which are being raised now, had already been raised by the petitioners when earlier they filed writ petition for quashing the FIR and subsequently, when the first petition was filed after taking cognizance in the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant would submit that all the arguments, which are being raised now, had already been raised by the petitioners when earlier they filed writ petition for quashing the FIR and subsequently, when the first petition was filed after taking cognizance in the case. It is argued that pursuant to the order passed in the first petition, the petitioners raised all the points at the time of framing of charge and the learned court below after detailed discussion, discharged the petitioners of the offences under Sections 406 and 327 IPC, but, found material sufficient to frame charge under Sections 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, which is reasoned and detailed order and requires no interference. 15. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 239 and 240 of the Code to argue that, in fact, it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned either to discharge an accused or frame the charge in accordance with the provisions as contained, in the Code. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Mishra, (2015) 13 SCC 8 , Minakshi Bala Vs. Sudhir Kumar and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 142 and Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, 2010 1 UD 115 . 16. In the case of Rakesh Mishra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed "However, it would suffice to say that the law on this point is crystal clear that only chargesheet along with the accompanying material is to be considered at the stage of framing of charges, so as to satisfy whether a prima facie case is made out. It has to be the subjective satisfaction of the Court framing charges." (Para 7) 17. In the case of Meenakshi Bala (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed "To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence." (Para 7) 18. In the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal (supra), this Court, inter alia, held that before framing of the charge, the Magistrate has to record his opinion that there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence. For that purpose, the Magistrate has to hear the accused and the prosecution on the question of charges. 19. This is petition under Section 482 of the Code. A jurisdiction, which is invoked to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. Ultimately, the purpose is to do complete justice. The jurisdiction is quite wide, but, guided by various principles as laid down by the Courts. The interference cannot be made in every case and at any time. 20. In the case of Indian Oil Coprn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the test in this regard, which is as hereunder:- "12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chanrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 , Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045 , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628 , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401 , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786 , M. Krishanan v. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283 . The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." 21. In the Case of Amit Kapoor Vs. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." 21. In the Case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , guidelines have further been laid with regard to the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with issue of quashing of a charge and held as hereunder:- "27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases." "27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution." "27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie." "27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist." 22. The arguments in the case are on different planks. On behalf of the petitioners, what is being argued is that it is not a case with any criminal element in it. It is a case purely civil in nature; petitioners are willing to execute the sale deed and it is the informant, who is avoiding the execution of sale deed. What is being argued is that the petitioners did never had any intention to cheat anyone. 23. It is a case purely civil in nature; petitioners are willing to execute the sale deed and it is the informant, who is avoiding the execution of sale deed. What is being argued is that the petitioners did never had any intention to cheat anyone. 23. On the other hand, on behalf of informant, what is being argued that it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate, which he had exercised and it is also being argued that the order framing charge is elaborate, detailed, which need no interference. 24. Undoubtedly, intentions cannot be read in words. It is something which can be inferred by the actions and deeds and by the conduct of any party. It is also settled law that if a case falls within the domain of breach of conduct and has an element of criminality it also may be an offence. 25. It is also settled law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia. FIR is to just inform so that the wheel of the justice may be rolled. It should give enough material for the law enforcing machinery to proceed with the case. 26. In the case of Rajesh Bajaj vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 259 , the Court observed that "It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent." (Para 9) In the same case, the Court, in fact, emphasised about the intention of the person, who is making the transaction. In para 10 and 11 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder; "10. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. One of the illustrations set out under Section 415 of the Penal Code, 1860 [Illustration f] is worthy of notice now: "(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats. 11. The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not. The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that the respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realised later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that the respondent after receiving the goods had sold them to others and still he did not pay the money. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities." 27. It is a stage of framing of charge. Unless, there are exceptional and rare circumstances, interference should not be made. In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 , the Hon'ble Court after interpreting the law, laid down on the point, observed "Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter." (Para 37) 28. When the first petition filed by the petitioner was decided on 05.11.2015, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that they would seek discharge in view of the fact that the petitioner is "ready and willing to execute the sale deed and no offence is made out against the petitioners". The petitioners sought discharge. When the first petition filed by the petitioner was decided on 05.11.2015, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that they would seek discharge in view of the fact that the petitioner is "ready and willing to execute the sale deed and no offence is made out against the petitioners". The petitioners sought discharge. In fact, learned Trial Court, while passing the order on framing of charge on 02.08.2019, appreciated the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, discussed the law and thereafter passed the order. Even, if the petitioners had approached this Court in the past, it does not preclude this Court, at this stage, to examine the validity of charge; to examine as to whether, is it a case with no element of criminality? 29. The order framing charge dated 02.08.2019 passed in the case reveals that at the time of argument, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the agreement to sale is non-registered; stamp duty not paid, which is a void document, it has no legal force and the agreement had also expired long before the FIR was lodged, therefore, on the basis of such agreement no criminal act may be constituted. In fact, this argument is quite in contradiction to what is being argued before this Court, because in the first petition and in this petition also, on behalf of the petitioners, it is argued that the petitioners are ready and willing to honour the agreement and are ready and willing to execute the sale deed. When the Court requested learned counsel for the petitioners as to why contradictory stands are being taken before this Court and in the Trial Court, to it, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a party may take all the defences that are available to him and as may be advised to him. 30. Strangely, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to stop/ restrain this Court to read that part of the impugned order which records arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, in the trial Court, at the time of framing of charges, by arguing that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at the time of framing of charge, only those documents may be considered, which have been filed alongwith the Police report. Impliedly, what learned counsel for the petitioners tried to convey is that this Court should not consider the arguments, which were advanced on behalf of the petitioners, in the court below, at the time of framing of charge. This argument, has no force; it tends to obstruct the course of justice. This argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners has, in fact, been intimidating. It may rightly be termed as a "most unfair argument". 31. It is settled law that no other documents can be relied on at the time of framing of charge which is not the part of the investigation. Although, there may be exceptions to it also, but, it does not mean that this Court is restricted, even to consider the arguments, which have been advanced in the Trial Court by the petitioners. May be, perhaps tomorrow it may also be argued then that the arguments, which are not part of the police report, may not be appreciated. This is not the intention of law. 32. The petitioners have taken contradictory stands before this Court and before the Court below. It assumes significance for reading the minds of the petitioners (B. Suresh Yadav case as quoted in para 11 hereinabove). It reflects the intention of the petitioners to avoid the deal which they had made with the informant. 33. In cases like instant one, to attract criminal liability, definitely, intention of the parties are very important. As stated in the case of Rajesh Bajaj (supra), it is not necessary that ingredients of offences should be written in the complaint. 34. It is true that in the FIR, at one stage, the informant wrote that when petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary did not come to execute the sale deed on 13.10.2014, he realised that the intentions of petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary became dishonest. But, the FIR has to be read in totality. The FIR states that since beginning it is the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary, who approached the informant, who is a doctor and who knew petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary as his patient. FIR further states that the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary requested that his land may be purchased by the informant. According to FIR, there have been repeated requests by the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary and his family members. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary as his patient. FIR further states that the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary requested that his land may be purchased by the informant. According to FIR, there have been repeated requests by the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary and his family members. It is on those persistent requests that the informant agreed to purchase the land. Then it says that after execution of the agreement to sale, when the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary did not deliver the documents, which he was required to deliver, notice was given to him but he refused to receive the notice and there are other averments as well. It refers to the intention. In those lines, intention has to be read. In a statement under Section 161 of the Code, the informant has reiterated the version of FIR. He tells to the Investigating Officer that both the petitioners and other family members requested him to purchase the land and he paid Rs. 75 Lakh in advance. Subsequent denial to accept notice and on 13.10.2014, the informant's appearance in the Registry Office for execution of sale deed and other events have been narrated by the informant. The learned court below extensively dealt with all those factual aspects and in paragraph 13 concluded about the intention. 35. Much of the discussions should not be made at this stage and conclusive finding should also be avoided, but suffice to say, it is not a case in which there is no criminal intention. From the perusal of all the documents and statements, this transaction has an element of criminality. 36. Argument has been advanced with regard to the role of Petitioner no.2 Sri Ram Chaudhary. It is true that he is not the man, who executed the sale deed, but, the FIR records that request to purchase the land was made not only by petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary, but, by his family members, as well. In his statement under Section 161 of the Code, the informant has stated about the role of both the petitioners. The learned court below has discussed the matter in quite detail. The order framing charge is in accordance with law. It is a case in which no interference is warranted. 37. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the instant petition is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. 38. The petition is dismissed.