Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shrikant Jamindar vs Vinod Kumar on 17 May, 2018

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
                     M.Cr.C. No.9096/2017
             (Shrikant Jamindar Vs. Vinod Kumar)

Indore, dated 17.04.2018
     Parties through their counsel.
      The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 09/08/2017 passed
by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision
No.317/2017 (Shrikant Jamindar Vs. Vinod Kumar).

      The facts of the case reveal that the present applicant
before this Court has entered into an agreement on 28/05/2011
for sale of house No.13/1, Khasra No.376-377 and has also
received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The facts further reveal that
thereafter the registered sale deed was not executed and later on
the complainant came to know that the present petitioner was
not having a right to sell the property. He was not the exclusive
owner and as allegedly a fraud/cheating was played upon the
complainant, he made an attempt to lodge a FIR at police
station- Raoji Bajar, Indore and as well as submitted a
complaint to the Superintendent of Police. As nothing was being
done in the matter, he has filed a complaint alleging
commission of offence under Section 420, 467, 468 471 of the
IPC. Alongwith the complaint a document dated 03/07/1990
was also filed and it was the document which was given by the
present applicant to the complainant and the complainant was
told that it is a power of attorney given in favour of the present
petitioner on account of which he was competent to execute a
sale deed.

      The complainant has further stated that later he met the
mother of present petitioner and she has categorically told the
respondent    that   the   present   petitioner   is   not   at   all

authorized/empowered to dispose of family property and he is playing fraud with large number of people and he has executed large number of agreements and is committing crime by doing so.

The learned Judge after statements of witnesses were recorded on 04/03/2017 has taken cognizance in the matter. Against order dated 04/03/2017, a revision was preferred and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 09/08/2017 has dismissed the revision also. The revisional Court has taken into account the document dated 03/07/1992 which was allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner empowering him to dispose of the entire trust property. The learned Judge has also taken into account the statements of witnesses and has arrived at a conclusions that the revision deserves to be dismissed and he has dismissed the revision.

Learned counsel has argued before this Court that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Kundanlal Jain & others Vs. Virendera Singh Solanki reported in 2016(1) JLJ 28 as well as the judgment delivered in the case of Rajeshwar Tiwari and ors. Vs. Nanda Kishore Roy reported in ANJ 2010(2) (Suppl.) 69.

His contention is that in light of the aforesaid judgments, the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside.

This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is based upon the statements of the witnesses and as there was an allegation of playing fraud by producing a document dated 03/07/1992, he has arrived at a conclusion that it is not a pure simple civil dispute as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revisional Court has also taken care of both the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel and as the averments made in the complaint did prima- facie establish commission of crime, the revisional Court has dismissed the revision also.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the revisional Court and the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 09/08/2017, in light of the averments made in the complaint and evidence on record, does not want any interference and accordingly, the admission is declined.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. C. Sharma) Judge vibha Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 2018.05.17 18:09:51 +05'30'