Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 497 (RAJ)

Rajni v. State of Rajasthan

2020-03-18

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred by the accused petitioners Smt. Rajni and Sandeep Kumar for assailing the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision No.52/2016 rejecting the revision petition and affirming the order dated 12.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.167/2012, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the petition are noted hereinbelow. 3. The respondent No.2 complainant Bana Ram filed a private complainant in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh alleging inter alia that he and the petitioner Smt. Rajni Sharma jointly purchased 52 bighas of land comprising of Khasra Nos.167, 185 and 190 of Village Daidaspura by way of an agreement executed on 19.11.2003 for consideration of Rs.1,04,000/-. While executing the agreement, the petitioner and the complainant were put in possession of the land. The complainant claimed that he started cultivating the land and on several occasions, he made requests to the land owner for executing the registered sale deed, but the registration was deferred for one reason or the other. It was further alleged that the petitioners Smt. Rajni and Sandeep Kumar got two separate registered sale deeds executed in their favour on 09.07.2004 and 15.03.2005 respectively each for 26 bighas of land thereby fraudulently frustrating the agreement existing in favour of the complainant. The complainant alleged that this act of the accused amounted to offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. On these allegations, the complainant sought prosecution of the petitioners. 4. The complaint so submitted by the complainant was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police for enquiry under Section 202 CrPC, which was undertaken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Suratgarh, who carried out a detailed inquiry and initially concluded that the sale deed was executed in favour of Smt. Rajni with the consent of the complainant. However, later on, the opinion was changed and it was held that there was a foul play in the sale deed, which was executed in favour of the petitioners because the complainant had also given significant share of consideration when the initial agreement was signed. 5. However, later on, the opinion was changed and it was held that there was a foul play in the sale deed, which was executed in favour of the petitioners because the complainant had also given significant share of consideration when the initial agreement was signed. 5. The learned Magistrate, thereupon proceeded to pass the order dated 12.04.2012, whereby the inquiry report was made the foundation for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Section 420 and 120-B IPC. The petitioners assailed the order taking cognizance by filing two separate revision Nos.15/2012 and 16/2012, which came to be accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar vide its order dated 14.06.2013 and the impugned order dated 12.04.2012 was quashed. However, while accepting the revision petitions, the learned revisional court used the word "discharged" while quashing the order taking cognizance. The complainant Bana Ram challenged the order dated 14.06.2013 by filing a revision petition No.964/2013 in this court, which was accepted by order dated 08.09.2016, wherein, it was held that no charge had been framed against the accused and hence, there was no occasion of them being discharged. Accordingly, the order dated 12.04.2012 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the revisional court for fresh decision. On remand, the learned revisional court rejected the revision petitions of the petitioners vide order dated 06.08.2019 and affirmed the order of the trial court. Hence, the present petitioners have approached this court by way of this miscellaneous petition. 6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Mr. B.S. Sandhu, learned counsel representing the petitioners, Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel representing the complainant and have gone through the impugned orders and the material placed on record for consideration of this court. 7. The initial agreement between the complainant, whereby the land owner Mahesh Sharma proposed to sell the chunk of land admeasuring 52 bighas was executed on 19.11.2003 in favour of the complainant Bannaram and the petitioner Smt. Rajni. 7. The initial agreement between the complainant, whereby the land owner Mahesh Sharma proposed to sell the chunk of land admeasuring 52 bighas was executed on 19.11.2003 in favour of the complainant Bannaram and the petitioner Smt. Rajni. It was specifically mentioned in this agreement that out of the total consideration amount of Rs.1,04,000/-, the land owner had received a sum of Rs.60,000/- and the remaining amount to the tune of Rs.44,000/- would be payable by 31.01.2004, whereafter, the seller would be under an obligation to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner Rajni Sharma and the complainant Bana Ram for equal shares, i.e. 26-26 bighas each. It was further provided that in case, the purchasers failed to get the sale deed executed after making payment of the balance amount by the stipulated date, i.e. 31.01.2004, the advance amount would be forfeited in favour of the seller. 8. Manifestly, the complainant failed to take the requisite lawful steps, i.e. issuance of notice etc. to get the registered sale deed executed, whereafter, the two questioned sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners Smt. Rajni Sharma and Sandeep Kumar for 26 bighas of land each on 09.07.2004 and 15.03.2005 respectively, i.e. well after the due date fixed in the agreement had expired. The complainant has not alleged in his complaint or in his evidence that he made any effort to get the registered sale deed of the land in question executed by 31.01.2004 as stipulated in the agreement. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the land owner for carrying out his obligation under the agreement. Manifestly, as a period of more than three years had lapsed, the complainant even lost the civil right to get the sale deed executed by resorting to a suit for specific performance as he did not hold good to his side of the contract. Apparently, the seller had no obligation to retain the land after 31.01.2004 and was at absolute liberty to sell it to whomsoever he desired to or enjoy the property as per his choice. It is not in dispute that as per the initial agreement dated 19.11.2003, half of the land had been agreed to be sold to the petitioner Smt. Rajni Sharma, whereas the remaining half was agreed to be sold to the complainant Bana Ram. It is not in dispute that as per the initial agreement dated 19.11.2003, half of the land had been agreed to be sold to the petitioner Smt. Rajni Sharma, whereas the remaining half was agreed to be sold to the complainant Bana Ram. As the complainant did not take any steps to get the registered sale deed executed by 31.01.2004 for his share in the land, therefore, there was no impediment against the petitioners Smt. Rajni Sharma and Sandeep Kumar in going ahead and purchasing the entire chunk of land from the land owner Mahesh Sharma. A very important fact is prominent from the complainant's conduct that he intentionally did not array the owner of the land as an accused in the complaint. Apparently, the petitioners Smt. Rajni Sharma and Sandeep Kumar, while purchasing the land did not offer any fraudulent inducement either to the complainant or to the land owner Mahesh Sharma, who sold the land in equal parts to the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the highest allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint and the evidence collected in the enquiry do not constitute necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. Rather, I am of the opinion that these allegations even do not constitute ingredients of a civil wrong. 9. Thus, the impugned order dated 12.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.167/2012, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and so also the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision No.52/2016 rejecting the revision and affirming the aforesaid order cannot be sustained as the same amount to gross abuse of process of law. Accordingly, both these orders and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 10. The miscellaneous petition is allowed in these terms.