Satyawan vs Sandeep Garg

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for setting aside the order dated 28.7.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar as well as the order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hisar, whereby the application u/s 294 of Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant was allowed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had agreed to sell plot No.2187, Sector 65, Faridabad to complainant-respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.15 lacs vide agreement dated 30.6.2007. The entire sale consideration was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner had executed one receipt in token of payment as well as the various documents. The transfer was to be effected on or before 31.8.2007. On 2.7.2007, the complainant-respondent filed documents for transfer of the plot in his favour, but he came to know that the petitioner has already executed the transfer documents in favour of one Satyabir. Hence, he filed an application u/s 294 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the learned trial Court.

Learned counsel contends that the learned courts below have committed a grave error while allowing the application of the respondent u/s 294 of Cr.P.C. and dismissing the revision of the petitioner. He further submits that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Heard.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar while dismissing the revision petition vide order dated 28.7.2012 (Annexure P-5) has observed as under:-

In the present case, complainant has set up an agreement to sell in his favour vide which accused agreed to sell one plot and received entire sale consideration of Rs.15 lacs against receipt. It is also the case of the complainant that accused also executed certain documents and all these documents are required to be put to the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the same. In case, accused admits the genuineness of the documents, litigation shall be cut short and curtailed and as such, no formal proof of signatures of the accused would be required subject to proviso appended to Section 294 Cr.P.C.

Both the impugned orders/ judgment are being challenged in this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that the inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are not a substitute for second revision. This court will not examine the whole documentary and oral evidence to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. So this second revision under the guise of petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. does not lie. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere in well reasoned orders passed by the learned courts below. Hence, the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine.