At the stage of framing of charge, a roving inquiry into the evidence is not required, and if the facts disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may be framed.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the ACJM No. 2, Bikaner in criminal case No. 444/2012 State v. Surja Ram & Ors. (Annex. 1) and order Dt. 30.07.2015 passed by the ADJ, Bikaner in case No.-6/2015 Surja Ram & Ors. v. State (Annex. 2) may kindly be quashed and set aside and proceeding in criminal case No. -444/2012 State v. Surja Ram & Ors., may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. As the pleaded facts and record would reveal, the genesis of the dispute is traceable to the complaint submitted by the respondent No. 2-complainant before the learned Additional C.J.M. No. 2, Bikaner, alleging therein that towards purchase of a land jointly held by the accused-petitioners, wherein they were having 1/3rd share, an agreement to sale, dated 30.12.2011, was executed between the parties, against which, the complainant paid to the petitioners an amount of Rs. 3,11,000/- and the remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale (registry); thereafter, on two different dates, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- each, was paid to the petitioners; and that the petitioners received a total advance sum of Rs. 7,11,000/- towards the sale in question. And that, despite repeated requests made by the complainant, the accused-petitioners failed to discharge their performance under the said agreement, and on 30.08.2012, sold the land in question to some third person, thereby committing criminal breach of trust, and cheating the complainant.

2.1. The said complaint was forwarded by the learned court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner, whereupon a case, bearing No. 349/2012 was registered against the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 IPC; and after investigation a case against the accused-petitioners was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. And that, the learned trial court, vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2014, framed charges against the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC; against which a revision was preferred by the petitioners, which came to be rejected by the learned revisional court, vide the impugned order dated 30.07.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the averments made in the complaint are without substance, and the has been lodged with a clear motive to falsely implicate the present petitioners in a case of criminal nature, despite the fact that the complete chain of events clearly shows that the dispute in question is purely of a civil nature.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners served two notices to the complainant to execute the sale; in response to the first notice, it was informed to the petitioners that in respect of the land in question, there was a stay granted by revenue court, whereupon after due endeavour, the petitioners were successful in seeking disposal of the case, along with vacation of the said stay order. And that, thereafter, the second notice served for execution of the sale, also did yield any result.

3.2. Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court have gravely erred in not considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and have not appreciated the evidence placed on the record and that hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioners and supporting the impugned orders, submitted that the accused-petitioners had made every possible endeavour to prolong and avoid the final execution of sale of the land in question in favour of the complainant