JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") has been preferred for quashing charge framed on 26.09.2019, in Criminal Case No. 887 of 2015, State vs. Hari Ram and Another, by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short 'the Case'). Both the petitioners have been charged under Sections 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of the petition, briefly stated, are as hereunder:-

Informant in the case (respondent no.2 herein) had an acquaintance with the petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary as he was his patient. In the month of March, 2014, petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary approached the informant and expressed his willingness to sell his land as he was in need of money. Informant was reluctant to purchase the land. But, the petitioner no.1 and his family members repeatedly requested the informant to purchase the land. Thereafter, the informant inquired about the documents of the proposed land and agreed to purchase it. An agreement to sale was executed and Rs. 75 Lakh was given as an advance to the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary by the informant. It was also agreed between the parties that within one month from the date of agreement, certain documents would be given by the petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary to the informant, but, he did not give those documents. After four months, informant on 29.09.2014 sent a notice to the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary but, he refused to receive it. It created doubt in the mind of the informant. He approached petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary, who agreed to execute the sale deed from 13.10.2014, but, he did not turn up at the Registry office, where the informant waited the whole day for him to come. Again, the informant requested the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary to execute the sale deed and 27.10.2014 was fixed as a date when Registry would be executed. On that date, when the informant visited the house of the petitioner no. 1 Hari Ram Chaudhary, according to the FIR, the petitioner no.1 Hari Ram Chaudhary and other persons abused, assaulted and tried to kill him and threatened him to life. FIR states that both the petitioners fraudulently and deceitfully cheated the informant and took Rs. 75 Lakh from him. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against both the petitioners and proceedings of the case instituted.

4. It has also been argued during the course of the arguments that when FIR was filed, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was also filed by the petitioners and subsequently, when cognizance was taken, another petition under Section 482 of the Code being C482 No. 906 of 2015 was preferred by the petitioners (first petition). The first petition was dismissed, but, the Court observed "petitioner may seek discharge at the time of framing of charge. It is further made clear that if petitioners failed to surrender before Learned Magistrate on or before 28.11.2015, learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law". Proceeding of the case initiated further and at the stage of framing of the charge, arguments were heard and by an order dated 02.08.2019, the Court discharged the petitioners of the charge under Sections 406 and 327 IPC. The Court observed that there are sufficient grounds for framing the charge under Sections 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Subsequently, on 26.09.2019, charges were framed. This is sought to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to the FIR and argue that the FIR itself reveals that if any intention to cheat was there, it was not initially. Learned counsel raised the following points:-

(1)The petitioner no. 1 wanted to sell but the informant himself had shelved his project as his partners withdre