Dwarka Nath Sharma vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is against the final order and judgment dated 7.8.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 1.6.2012 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naraingarh, vide which complaint filed by present petitioner against respondents No. 2 and 3 was rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.

Briefly stated petitioner and respondent No. 2 are closely related as petitioner is biological father of respondent No. 2. Allegations are that respondent No. 2 has made complainant to sign a gift deed on the pretext of getting signed power of attorney and hence gift deed dated 14.12.2005 executed by present petitioner in favour of his son-respondent No. 2 is the result of fraud having been committed upon him by his son.

After recording preliminary evidence of petitioner-complainant, the Magistrate did not find any prima facie offence having been made out against respondents No. 2 and 3 and hence complaint was dismissed vide order dated 1.6.2012. Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala.

It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that both the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner as at that stage only prima facie case is to be seen and the evidence of the petitioner which remained unrebutted should have been accepted. It is also contended that even amount of consideration has been mentioned in the gift deed whereas no consideration is required to be paid for executing a gift deed.

However, sufficient reasons have been given by both the Courts below for dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant. The alleged gift deed is a registered document and as per endorsement of Sub Registrar the same was read over to the petitioner, who signed the same after fully understanding its contents in the presence of the witnesses. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, that a rebuttable presumption is drawn that document was executed in the presence of parties and the same was signed by the petitioner after duly understanding its contents. Moreover, petitioner has already filed a civil suit challenging the said document and hence, validity of gift deed would be decided by the Civil Court.

In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court in its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. There is no merit in the present petition. The same is hereby dismissed.