HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH

ATJAMMU

CRMC No. 303/2013

P. Gajare and another

.....Petitioner/appellants (s)

Through:- Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advocate

v/s

Parveen Kumar Gupta

.....Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Rajnish Raina, Advocate

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

Inherent jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Section 561-

A Cr.P.C is being invoked by the petitioners for quashment of order dated

31.05.2013 (for brevity 8 impugned order9) passed by learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Jammu (for brevity 8Trial Court9) in Criminal Revision No.

50/Revision titled" Parveen Kumar Gupta V/S Col. P. Gajare by virtue of

which learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of issuance of process

dated 02.12.2011 passed by the Learned Special Municipal Mobile

Magistrate, Jammu ( for brevity 8learned Magistrate9).

2.

This petition is being maintained fundamentally on the grounds

that the petitioners preferred a criminal complaint against the respondent

under Sections 420, 120-b,467, 468 and 471 RPC before learned Magistrate

on 02.12.2011, on the ground that the accused / respondent herein and his

broker, namely, Mr. Ajay Gupta and one another at the time of negotiations

2 CRMC 303/2013

and deal of the house which was shown to the petitioners admitted that land

measuring 01 Kanal and a house constructed thereupon shall be sold along

with all furniture and fixtures for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen lacs), but after the registration of Sale Deed, when keys of the house

(supra) were handed over to the petitioners, it was found that all the furniture

and fixtures were removed from the said house. The Sale Deed was

executed in favour of petitioner No. 1 and was registered by the learned Sub-

Judge (Sub-Registrar) dated 05.03.2011 for the land measuring 01 Kanal and

house constructed thereupon as per Fard covered under Khasra No. 305,

Khata No. 1 and Khewat No. 1 situated at Moza Chowadhi, Tehsil and

District Jammu for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs)

only.

3.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the

respondent had agreed that the previous liabilities i.e. electricity charges,

water charges, gardners charges etc., shall be cleared by him, but nothing

was done by the respondent.

4.

It is stated that a complaint was filed by the petitioners before

the learned Magistrate, Jammu and the learned Magistrate vide order dated

02.12.2011 came to the conclusion that petitioners were cheated by the

respondent by making a false agreement and took cognizance against the

respondent for the commission of offences under Sections 420/468/471

RPC. The said order dated 02.12.2011 was challenged by the respondent in

criminal revision before the Trial Court and the Trial Court vide impugned

order dated 31.05.2013, accepted the said criminal revision and set aside the

order passed by the learned Magistrate.

3 CRMC 303/2013

5.

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.05.2013, petitioners

in the instant petition challenge the same on the following grounds:-

1. That the Trial Court fell in error in saying that negotiation

during transaction should be incorporated in the Sale deed, the

negotiation were oral at the time of transaction / deal that

house shall be sold along with furniture and fixtures need not

be incorporated in the sale deed, as such, the Trial Court is

wrong, in saying that no fraud has been committed by

respondent;

2. That committing the act of forgery or suppressing the forgery

amounts to same offence, the Trial Court is wrong that

respondent purchased the land and a house on the same

reve