The court emphasized the importance of having sufficient material to support the charges brought under specific sections of the IPC and adjusted the summoning of the accused petitioners accordingly.

S.P. Pathak, J.-This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397/402 of the CrPC against order dated 22.03.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu, on submitting a Protest Petition in F.R. No.168/03, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) has been taken against the accused petitioners and they have been summoned through warrant of arrest.

2. Briefly stated, the facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that Aslam Khan, who is complainant of the case, has filed the complaint against present accused petitioners,namely, Intzar Ali @ Anjar Ali and Jafar Ali on 17.06.2003 stating, inter-alia, therein that accused Intzar Ali told him that he is Power of Attorney holder of the land bearing Khasra No.154 situated at Ratangarh Road, District Churu, measuring about 11 bighas and 4 biswas, which was of the ownership of his father and as there was financial need to the family, therefore, he persuaded the complainant to purchase the same and an agreement was reduced in writing in relation to the above disputed land on 211.2002 and as an advance payment a sum of Rs.25,000/-was paid on the very same day and a sum of Rs.50,000/-was paid to accused on 012.2002. The remaining amount was paid through cheques. Thus, a sum of Rs.40,000/-was also collected by him through cheques which were given on 26.04.2003. In all, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-was paid to the accused petitioners and total consideration of the land was Rs.1,80,000/-.

3. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant came to know that Mutation was attested in regard to the disputed land in the year 2001 in the name of Municipality, Churu, and when this fact came to his notice, he stopped the payment of other cheuqes issued in favour of the accused. It is further stated in the averments that accused petitioners knowing it fully well on the day when agreement was reduced in writing that land stood transferred in the name of Municipality, Churu, this fact was not disclosed and agreement was reduced in writing and major portion of consideration in relation to the disputed land was obtained by them. It is further stated in the complaint that when complainant tried to contact the accused for refund of payment he failed to trace their whereabouts and when they met they declined to make any payment.

4. In the above circumstances, the complaint was filed to take legal action against the petitioners.

5. The police after investigation, came to the conclusion that though it is correct that the land stood transferred in the name of Municipality, Churu, and the amount was received by the accused petitioners as consideration of the disputed land but still the matter was of civil nature, therefore, submitted final report before the trial Court. The trial Court permitted the complainant to adduce evidence but the complainant did not adduce evidence.

6. The learned trial Court heard the arguments on the protest petition and after hearing both sides observed that it is not believable that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that the land stood transferred in the name of Municipality Churu when the agreement in relation to the disputed land for sale of the same was reduced in writing. It has also been stated by the trial Court that it also not believable that when the land stood transferred in the name of Municipality, Churu, neither it was intimated to the petitioners nor any communication was made in this regard to them. The trial Court further observed that evidence collected available in the police statement recorded during the course of investigation clearly proves that the land in question stood transferred prior to agreement made in relation to the land, therefore, the accused petitioners were liable to be prosecuted under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The Court took cognizance against the petitioners