Prima facie evidence of fraudulent inducement and the limited scope of the accused's defense at the stage of framing charges.

H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 210.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Bar (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 175/2003, by which the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC, against the accused-petitioners.

2. The facts relevant and necessary for the disposal of this criminal revision petition, in a succinct, are that non-petitioner No. 2 filed an FIR stating therein that by the agreement dated 05.09.1997, accused-petitioner Mitha Lal agreed to sell the agricultural land of Khasra Nos. 168, 278, 279, 280, 274/1, 281 and 284 measuring 47 Bighas and 15 Biswas for a consideration of Rs.5,11,001/-and received the earnest money of Rs.5,500/-from non-petitioner No. 2. On 15.05.1997, the agreement was executed by petitioner Mitha Lal in favour of non-petitioner No. 2, wherein the above-noticed Khasras were agreed to be sold to the non-petitioner No. 2 by accused-petitioner Mitha Lal and received Rs.53,000/-. On 18.05.1997, petitioner No. 2 Gyan Chand alias Genaram, who is the son of petitioner No. 1 Mitha Lal, received Rs.80,000/-from non-petitioner No. 2 towards the cost of the land alleged to have been agreed to be sold to the non-petitioner No. 2. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.22,000/-was also received by petitioner Mitha Lal from non-petitioner No. 2 as interest on the delayed payment. As such, the petitioners had received Rs.1,60,000/-from the non-petitioner No. 2. Non-petitioner No. 2 requested petitioner Mitha Lal for getting the documents of sale registered and to give physical possession of the land. The petitioner had been assuring the non-petitioner No. 2 to get the sale registered, whereas out of the above-noticed Khasras, certain land is neither in possession of the petitioners nor it is in their cultivation. This fact was not brought to the notice of the non-petitioner No. 2 by the petitioners. Non-petitioner No. 2 went on the site and he was informed by one Shri Nayak that the petitioners have no right over the land. On this, accused-petitioner Mitha Lal told that he would return the amount paid by non-petitioner No. 2 alongwith interest. Again, on 12.2000, petitioner Mitha Lal met non-petitioner No. 2 and assured that he would return the amount alongwith interest. Thereafter, petitioner Gyan Chand alias Genaram met non-petitioner No. 2 at Jaitaran and agreed that non-petitioner No. 2 owes the amount from his father but neither his father Mitha Lal nor he was in a position to return the amount. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B, IPC. On 14.02.2002, petitioner filed an application under Section 190, CrPC, before the trial Court, which stood dismissed by the trial Court. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 210.2004, held that no offence under Section 406, IPC, is made out against the petitioners; however, the trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC, against the petitioners.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 168, 278, 279 and 280 are in the exclusive Khatedari of petitioner Mitha Lal and he had 1/3rd share in Khasra No. 274/1. It has also been contended that Noratmal had 1/3rd share, about which he had executed a will in favour of petitioner Mitha Lal. Likewise, Gautam Chand had 1/3rd share, about which he had executed a Mukhtyarnama in favour of petitioner Mitha Lal. It has further been contended that petitioner Gyan Chand had ½ share in Khasra No. 284 and Khasra No. 281 is in the Khatedari of wife of petitioner No. 1 Mitha Lal. Thus, the petitioners had right to sell the land shown in the agreement but the s