The central legal point established in the judgment is that entering into an agreement to sell a plot owned by a third person falls within the ambit of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code when there is dishonest inducement and concealment of facts.

Indira Jain, J.

1. By these two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicants are challenging the common judgment and order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 492/ 2010 and 493/2010.

2. The facts giving rise to the applications may be stated, in brief, as under:

(a) Applicants Jadavlal and Ramesh are the original complainants. At the relevant time, non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 were the members and non-applicant no. 1 was Chairman of a registered society M/s. Ma Sharda Housing Agency. The grievance of complainants is that non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 influenced them to purchase an undeveloped plot from non-applicant no. 1-agency.

(b) On 11.10.2000, agreement of sale of a plot situated at mouza Wathoda was entered into and each of applicants parted with huge amount of Rs. 4,77,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 5,23,000/- and Rs. 10,34,536/-. Later on it was revealed that assurance given by non-applicants was totally false and lay-out was not in the name of M/s. Ma Sharda Housing Agency. In fact, agency was not the original owner, but non-applicant no. 1 representing himself as Chairman of agency and non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 as members, cheated and duped applicants by entering into false agreement of sale.

(c) Both the applicants then filed Regular Criminal Case Nos. 63/2001 and 64/2001 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. After recording verification of complainants, process was issued to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence before charge was recorded by the trial court. Vide order dated 7.5.2010, accused were discharged under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of discharge was carried before the revisional court in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 492 of 2010 and 493 of 2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dismissed the revisions on 16.5.2012. This order is impugned in present applications.

3. Heard Dr. R.S. Sundaram, learned counsel for applicants and Ms. M.A. Jaiswal holding for Shri P.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for non-applicants.

4. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for applicants that both the courts below missed an important ingredient of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code that applicants were induced to part with the huge amount by falsely making a representation that agency is the owner of the plot. The learned counsel urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court ought to have framed charge against the non-applicants as prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were very much present to proceed against the accused persons. He submits that posing as an owner when not an owner and with dishonest intention to induce the person to part with huge amount would constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and as such error is apparent in the order of the trial court as well as revisional court, which according to him, needs to be rectified in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court.

5. Per contra, Ms. M.A. Jaiswal holding for learned counsel for the non-applicants, strongly supports the orders and submits that there was no sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused, hence, trial court was right in discharging the accused.

6. In normal course, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this court would have been slow in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the revisional court. Here the grievance of complainants is that non-applicants together intentionally induced the complainants and entered into an agreement of sale of the plot on the assurance to execute sale deed when Ma Sharda Housing Agency was not the real owner of the plot at all.

7. It can be seen from 7/12 extracts Exhs.78 to 81 that agency purchased the proper