Inder Mohan Kumar vs Wadhawa Ram

B.S. Yadav, J.

The present petitioner Inder Mohan Kumar was arrayed as an accused alongwith others in criminal complaint filed by the present respondent Wadhawa Ram. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, after recording to the preliminary evidence came to the opinion that there was sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused under sections 423, 467, 468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly he ordered that processes be issued against the accused. In this petition the petitioner prays for quashing the said order.

According to the allegations in the complaint the present petitioner, who is residing in Chandigarh, is the owner of plot No. 926 situated in Sector 14, Faridabad. He agreed to sell that plot to the complainant for Rs. 21700/. Inder Mohan Kumar executed an agreement of sale and delivered it to the complainant on 2.11.1980. He also executed a receipt about the receipt of the consideration. He also executed an indemnity bond in the name of the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, to transfer the said plot in the name of the complainant as per rules of the Estate Office and deposited it in the Estate Office. According to the rules, the complainant deposited two drafts, one for Rs. 3500/ and the other for Rs. 1360/ in the name of Inder Mohan Kumar with the Estate Office for the purposes of transfer of the plot. The Estate Officer issued letter No. 160910 dated 22.1.1981 to the complainant stating therein that the said plot had been transferred in his name. H.R. Ahuja, proprietor of M/s Ahuja Property Dealers, Faridabad, met the complainant and told him that there was some clerical mistake in the transfer letter issued by the Estate Office and Harinder Singh, SuperintendentcumAssistant of the said office, wanted to see him (i.e. the complainant) in his office. (It may be mentioned here that both, H.R. Ahuja and Harinder Singh have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3). The complainant went to the Estate Office and met Harinder Singh, who took the letter from the complainant and told him that there was a letter of accused No. 1 i.e. Inder Mohan Kumar to cancel all his documents for the transfer of that said plot and so that letter of transfer would remain with him i.e. accused No. 3 till further orders. Thus accused No. 3 in collusion with accused Nos. 1 and 2 retained that letter and refused to handover the same to the complainant. The complainant also received one letter from accused No. 1 stating that all the documents in connection with the transfer of the plot have been cancelled as the cheque given to him by H.R. Ahuja had been dishonoured. The complainant received one letter from the Estate Officer, Faridabad, stating that the transfer letter No. 160910 dated 22.1.1981 stood cancelled as it had been issued unsigned. Thus accused No. 3 in collusion with accused Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently and dishonestly obtained the original letter from the complaint and got cancelled the transfer of the said plot. The complainant visited respondent No. 3 in the letter''s office on 14.6.1981 and asked him to deliver the transfer letter dated 22.1.1981. Accused No. 3 told the complainant that as the said letter was not duly signed by the Estate Officer so it has been with drawn. Accused No. 3 showed the file and also the unsigned transfer letter. However, that letter was not the same which had been taken by accused No. 3 from the complainant by practising fraud. Thus accused No. 3 in collusion with accused Nos. 1 and 2 changed the original letter of transfer and fraudulently and dishonestly destroyed it.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that out of the sale consideration, H.R. Ahuja had paid Rs. 4000/ by means of a cheque but that cheque was dishonoured and, therefore, the present petitioner was entitled to writ to the Estate Office to cancel the documents about transfer of the plot to the complainant. According to him, the present dispute is merely of civil nature as according to the complainant, it arises from breach of contract. Had that matter been limited to that extent, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners might have some force. However, in the present case the complainant has further alleged the circumstances in which the original letter of transfer issued to him by the Estate Officer was taken back from him by respondent No. 3 and later on destroyed. According to the complainant, accused No. 3 committed that offence in collusion with accused Nos. 1 and 2, otherwise he had no interest in the plot.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no evidence on the record to support that allegation of collusion. It is to be noted that the case at present is at the stage of summoning of the accused and, therefore, we have only to see the allegations contained in the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate.

Wadhawa Ram complainant had appeared during preliminary evidence as a witness and after narrating the above story contained in the complaint and proving the documents produced on the file, stated that the accused had entered into conspiracy to harm him. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence to support the allegations contained in the complaint that all the 3 accused acted in collusion to harm the complainant. Only after crossexamination of the witness it can be elicited how the complainant has reason to believe that the accused conspired to cause harm to him. That stage would come only after the accused appears in Court and crossexamines the complainant and his witnesses.

In the light of the above discussion I do not find that it is fit case for quashing the orders summoning the accused. I may also quote here Khacheru Singh v. State of U.P. and another, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 784(2) where the Lordship of the Supreme Court remarked :

"We do not see any justification though we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, for the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 1979, which was affirmed by the High Court of Allahabad by its order dated 7.5.80. All that the learned Magistrate had done was to issue a summons to respondent No. 2 Satyavir Singh. If, eventually, the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence was made out against Satyavir Singh, it will be open to him to discharge or acquit him as the case may be. But it is difficult to appreciate why the order issuing "summons" to the accused should be quashed. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court, restore that of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Meerut dated February 2, 1979, and remit the matter to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law".

The matter, of course, would have been different if there were no allegations against the petitioner about prima facie commission of an offence or there was not an iota of evidence to support it. As discussed above, that is not the case in the present case.

For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss the present petition.