Held that there was no material to establish a conspiracy involving purchasers. The Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge were correct in not summoning Raj Bala and her husband. The Crl.M.C. was dismissed.
Crl. M.C. 2504/2016 dismissed and the order of revision rejection was allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
31# $
Crl. M.A. No. 10777/2016 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 2504/2016
Page 1 of 3
CRL.M.C. 2504/2016
Bhan was confronted. On 31st July, 2010 Suraj Bhan admitted that out of the total land of late Jai Lal he had already sold 100 sq. yards to Smt. Raj Bala on 10th September, 2005 vide registered Sale Deed.
50,000/- whereas the cost of land at that time was more than 7 lakhs and the sale deed did not mention that out of the 100 sq. yards being sold 50 sq. yards was acquired on account of being legal heir and 50 sq. yards was self acquired. Further it did not appear that any property was exchanged. Thus alleging connivance with Suraj Bhan, Raj Bala and her husband Ranbir, a complaint was lodged before the police on which no action was taken and thus a complaint case was filed before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After the petitioner deposed on oath in sync with his complaint the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to Suraj Bhan for offence punishable under Sections 420/468/471 IPC however held that Raj Bala and Ranbir had no role to play as they are purchaser of the said land and no offence was made out qua them. 3. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 7th October, 2015 not summoning Raj Bala and her husband Ranbir, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22nd April, 2016. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also noted that the photocopy of thePage 2 of 3
CRL.M.C. 2504/2016
certified copy of the cross-examination of Ranbir Singh in Suit No. 375/11/10 titled as ‘ Rajkumar vs. Ranbir ’ cannot be considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the same was neither produced nor proved in accordance with law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that at this stage it cannot be assumed that the petitioner signed the document utilized by Suraj Bhan without going through the same. Further there was no role assigned to Raj Bala and Ranbir in execution of the aforesaid documents in relation to the partition of the property
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE
JULY 20, 2016 ‘vn’
Page 3 of 3
CRL.M.C. 2504/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts were correct in not summoning purchasers Raj Bala and Ranbir for offences under Sections 420/468/471 IPC.
Whether the revision petition against the High Court's order further dismissing the revision was maintainable or should be allowed.
RAJ KUMAR
SURAJ BHAN
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court