AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 29.06.2000 passed by the Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) No. 2, Sikar whereby the learned Magistrate has framed the charges against the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 420 & 423 Indian Penal Code.
The brief facts of the case are that according to the complainant, Ghadsi Ram, the petitioner, Nanu Ram, had mortgaged his land to him and had handed over the possession of the said land to him. However, despite this fact, on 27.07.1992, the petitioner entered into an agreement with one Bhim for sale of the said land. According to the agreement, even the possession of the land was given to Bhim, although the possession was with the complainant himself. Furthermore, on 30.04.1992, the petitioner executed two sale-deeds with regard to the same piece of land with another party. This complaint was sent to the police for investigation u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure On the basis of the complaint, police registered a FIR, FIR No. 185/1992, at Police Station Panoli. Subsequently, on 31.03.1994, the police submitted a charge-sheet. After taking cognizance against the petitioner, vide order dt. 29.06.2000, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.
Mr. Ashvin Garg, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that there is civil a suit which is pending between the parties. Although the complainant has filed an application for temporary injunction in the civil suit, the same has been rejected by the concerned civil Court. Therefore, clearly the entire criminal machinery has been initiated with ulterior motive.
On the other hand, Mr. Hem Singh Rathore, the learned Counsel for the complainant, has contended that merely because the temporary injunction application has been rejected, it does not dilute petitioner''s criminal liability. Since the petitioner was aware of the fact that the land had already been mortgaged, and the possession of the said land was with the complainant, still in the agreement, and in the sale-deed, he has mentioned that the possession is being given to the buyer. Thus, by making such a false statement, he was causing wrongful loss to the complainant and was accruing wrongful gain for himself. Thus, clearly, the elements of cheating are present in this case. Hence, the learned Magistrate was justified in framing the charges for offences under Sections 420 & 423 Indian Penal Code.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
The mere pendency of a civil suit cannot pre-empt a person from filing a criminal case against the offending party. Therefore, merely because an application for temporary injunction has been rejected by the concerned civil Court, such a rejection does not provide any protection to the petitioner against a criminal liability. A bare perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant clearly reveals that a prima facie case does exist against the petitioner. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that at the time of framing of charges, the trial Court is concerned only with the existence of a prima facie case. Hence, the learned Magistrate was justified in framing the charges against the present petitioner.
In this view of the matter, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. The Registry is directed to return the record forthwith to the concerned Court.