Derabassi, Distt. SAS Nagar Mohali, Sukhdev Singh Bajwa @ Sunny Director M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd Sunny Enclave Kharar S/o Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Tehsil Kharar, Dist. SAS Nagar Mohali, Bhupinder Singh Personal P.A. of Jarmail Singh Bajwa, M.D. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. Sunny Enclave Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. SAS, The then concerned Halka Patwari of Vill. Jhungian, Tehsil Kharar, Hadbast No.29, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali and The then concerned Sub Registrar Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali. CIS NO. CRM-537-2024 U/S 156(3) CrPC Sh. Gurmehtab Singh, PCS judicial Magistrate First Class, This order will dispose of an application / complaint filed by the complainant/ applicant under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code for issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 & 2 to registered the FIR under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 120-B of IPC against private respondent No.3 to 8, or to treat the present complaint. 2. In brief, the facts of the present application/complaint are that the complainant is permanent resident of above said address. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 who is MD of M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. enter into agreement to sell one showroom at SCO no.1112 measuring 62.22 sq. Yds. Situated at Hill View Market, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave Kharar through GPA respondent no. 4 to the complainant. That the respondent no. 3 to 6 in connivance with each other shown the site plan of the above said showroom as they was given assurance to the complainant that the said showroom is free from all encumbrances and there is no loan from any bank, agency or firm in the above said Khasra no. of the showroom. It is further submitted that the respondent no, 4 who is GPA of respondent no.3 and respondent 4 & 5 who also director, P.A and respondent no. 3 selling and purchasing the property in the name of firm namely M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. It is further submitted that respondents no. 3 to 6 also given assurance to the complainant that there is no dispute with regard to the property of SCO no. 1112. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no. 3 to 6 are also showing the complainant the map of the SCO no 1112 and they were saying to the complainant that the above said showroom is approved from GAMADA and also from Municipal Committee Kharar. It is further submitted that the respondent no.4 who is GPA of respondent no.3 executed receipt of full and final payment of above said SCO with other properties vide receipt dated 07.04.2022 and executed the sale deed of above said SCO vide sale deed dated 06.09.2022. It is further submitted that after 4/5 months the complainant and his son namely Arvinder Singh came to know that the respondent no. 3 to 6 in connivance each other had committed a fraud with the complainant by executing the sale deed of above said SCO no. 1112 on the basis of false frivolous documents prepared by respondent no. 3 to 6 just with the motive to grab the amount from the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that from the complainant came to know that the respondent no. 3 to 6 have executed a wrong sale deed of false and wrong khasra nos, of the land whereas the Khasra no of GPA, mentioned in the site plan, Khasra no. mentioned in the sale deed are totally different from each other. It is further submitted that the complainant scrutinizing the revenue record and came to know that Khara no qua the above said properties does not match with each other, It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no. 3 to 6 have mentioned other khasra nos. in the attorney and different Khara nos in regularization certificate issued by the local govt. and Khsra nos. of SCO no.1112 situated at Village Jhungian are different from the attorney and registration certificate, even the complainant was shocked when the complainant scrutinizing the Khara nos. mentioned the sale deed from where she came to know that the respondent no. 3 to 6 with the motive to Cheat commit fraud with the complainant have mentioned different Khara nos. in different certificate issued by the respondent no. 3 to 6. It is further submitted that while executing the sale deed in favour of complainant the respondent no. 3 to 8 have not passed the site plan from the municipal committee however the same was necessary as per the guidelines of the government that at the time of executed sale deed the site plan of the SCO no. 1112 must have to be passed from the municipal committee, but the respondent no. 3 to 8 violated the direction of the government and have cheated the complainant. It is further submitted that the SCO no. 1112 given by respondent
