JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.(ORAL)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the judgment dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby the revision petition against the order dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the JMIC, Bathinda summoning the respondent No.1 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed in FIR No.115 dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420 /34 IPC at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda.

2. The brief facts as emanating from the pleadings are that one Gora Lal Goyal (petitioner No.1/complainant) got registered the aforementioned FIR with the allegations that accused Mohan Lal was the owner in possession of a plot measuring 300 sq. yards comprising in Khasra No.4757 min (0-6) Khata No.1490/6749/2 situated at Street No.5, Partap Nagar, Near Naina Devi Mandir, Bathinda vide sale deed dated 26.07.2002. Mohan Lal sold the said plot to Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.1) vide sale deed dated 24.09.2004 with a recital that the property was free from all sorts of encumbrances. The said Ravinder Kumar sold the aforementioned plot to the complainant and his wife Sonia Goyal, the present complainants vide sale deed dated 11.11.2008. Ravinder Kumar had assured the complainants that the said property was free from all sorts of encumbrances. However, the petitioners had received a possession notice dated 08.02.2013 from the ICICI Bank, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda stating that Mohan Lal and Sushila Devi were to pay a sum of Rs.3,32,106/- on account of the loan availed by them on the property in question. Therefore, the petitioners had been cheated by the accused including respondent No.1.

3. After conducting investigation, while Mohan Lal and Sushila Devi were challaned by the police of Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda, however, it was opined that they had not only cheated the petitioners but had also committed a fraud with Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.1).

4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.1) as an additional accused. The said application was allowed by the Court of JMIC, Bathinda vide its order dated 06.04.2016. The copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the petition.

5. Aggrieved with the aforementioned judgment, Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.1) preferred a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda and the summoning order was set aside by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-4). The copy of the said judgment of the Additional Sesions Judge, Bathinda is annexed as Annexure P-4 to the petition.

It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants contends that Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.1) was an equal party to the fraud. He was aware of the fact that the property purchased by him from Mohan Lal and Sushila Devi was not free from any encumbrance. In fact, he had deposited a loan amount of Rs.1,58,000/- in the loan account of Mohan Lal and therefore, as the sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioners on 11.11.2008 contained the recital that the property was free from all encumbrances, Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.1) was equally liable along with the challaned accused and had therefore been rightly summoned by the Trial Court and wrongly discharged by the Lower Appellate Court. Even otherwise, the petitioners had duly supported the prosecution case in Court against the respondent No.1-Ravinder K