1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar, in the corn-plaint File No. 19/A, titled Ghulam Mohammad Khan v. Nazir Ahmad Bazaz and others, whereby and whereunder the complaint, in terms of Section 203 of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is bad in law for the reason that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the contents of the complaint and has dismissed the same on the basis of preliminary statement of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respon#31;dents has argued that the matter is of civil nature and the impugned order is legal one, and therefore, needs no interference.

3. It appears that the petitioner-complainant Ghulam Mohammad Khan had filed a complaint against the respondents-accused under Sections 406,420,323,341, 352,427,451,453,354 RPC. In the complaint, it was that the complainant, some four years back, rented out two shops, one each to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- each. It is submitted by the petitioner that, thereafter, a proposal was made by respondents 1 & 2 to the petitioner that they wanted to purchase these shops from the complainant-petitioner and that the petitioner agreed to the said proposal. It is alleged that in this regard sale price was fixed at Rs. 9.00 lacs and subsequently the respondents 1 & 2 paid a part payment of Rs. 4.30 lacs to the petitioner with the assurance to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4.70 lacs within a period of one week, at the time of drafting the necessary papers. It is further alleged that respondent No. 3 was accompanying the respondents at that time and he asked the petitioner to sign some blank papers under the pretext that signatures are taken in lieu of receipt for the money so received by the petitioner as part payment. It is submitted that, thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 & 2 for execution of sale deed, but they refused to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4.70 lacs. In the background of the aforesaid allegations, it is therefore submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have played a fraud by making the petitioner to sign blank papers and are now also criminally intimidating the petitioner and harassing him.

4. In support of the complaint, the statement of the complainant was recorded by the trial Court, in which he has stated that he had rented out the two shops to Nazir Ahmad Bazaz and Imtiyaz Ahmad Najar on 14.04.2012. They refused to pay rent and also told the complainant that they will not make any payment and that the petitioner could do whatever he wanted. Then, with the intervention of some respectable persons, it was decided that the respondents 1 & 2 will purchase the said shops in consideration of Rupees five lacs per shop. The complainant further stated that out of the said consideration amount, the accused No. 1 paid 2.30 lacs and accused No. 2, Imtiyaz Ahmad, paid 2.00 lacs and they have denied to make the payment of the balance amount.

5. It is thus axiomatic from preliminary statement of the complainant recorded by the trial court during the pendency of the complaint, that the dispute in question that is sought to be agitated is purely of a civil nature. The trial court has, thus, rightly held that no case is made out for drawing any proceedings against the respondents for the commission of any offence alleged in the complaint and, resultantly, has rightly rejected the complaint

6. In the aforementioned discussion and backdrop, this criminal revision petition is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed as such.

7. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court below.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document