- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA.
(2.) THIS application under section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 1. 11. 2007, by which the dis charge application moved by the applicants under section 239 Cr. P. C. in pursuance of this Court's order dated 20. 6. 2007, has been rejected by the Special CJM, Kanpur Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings in Case No, 135 of 2006, under sections 406, 420, 120-B, 504 and 506, IPC, P. S. Kotwali, Dis trict Kanpur Nagar, pending before the aforesaid Court. The facts of this case were that a certain property was purchased by three persons, namely, the non- applicant, Samar Singh, applicant Jayant Chatterjee and op posite party No. 2, Anil Mehra, on 15. 7. 2003. It is stated that on 22. 11. 2003 Samar Singh sold his portion of the prop erty to Jayant Chatterjee and Anil Mehra, who thereby became owner of half portion of the property each. Thereafter, it is al leged that some dispute arose between Jay ant Chatterjee and Anil Mehra and Jayant Chatterjee sold his portion of the property to Samar Singh on 14. 7. 2005. Now Anil Mehra filed a civil suit No. 1017 of 2005 against Samar Singh on 15. 7. 2005, in which an interim order of maintaining status quo was passed. As there was a difficulty in utilization of the said property in dispute in the civil suit, hence a compromise was entered into between Anil Mehra and Samar Singh on 5. 8. 2005. It is alleged that in pursuance to the said compromise it was decided that half each of the farm house would be divided between Anil Mehra and Samar Singh and that subsequently Anil Mehra gave Rs. 1, 50, 000 to Samar Singh through cheques for divesting him of his share of the property. However, in spite of divestiture of his share, Samar Singh sub sequently sold his property in pursuance of a conspiracy with the applicants to the ap plicant No. 2, Rubi Chatterjee. It is argued by the learned Coun sel for the applicants that in the com promise agreement dated 5. 8. 2005 there is no mention that Rs. 1, 50, 000 shall be paid by Anil Mehra to Samar Singh in future or that the said property was subsequently to be transferred to Anil Mehra. However, no explanation has been given in the application as to why the admitted payments by cheques of Rs. 1, 50, 000 were made by Anil Mehra to Samar Singh; though it is sug gested by the learned Counsel for the ap plicants that Anil Mehra and Samar Singh were business partners and the said pay ments could have been made for some business transaction. It is denied by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 that Anil Mehra and Samar Singh are busi ness partners. I think this is a question of fact which may appropriately be decided by the Trial Court. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the applicants that no sale-deed or sale-agreement could be entered into in this form as section 54 of the Transfer of Prop erty Act, as amended by U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976, requires that any such agreement must be a written and registered one.
(3.) I am not concerned with the legal ity of the sale-agreement. However, the question which troubles me is why the complainant would be paying three amounts of Rs. 50, 000 each, totaling Rs. 1, 50, 000 to Samar Singh unless it was for the purpose of divesting Samar Singh of his share as alleged by the complainant. All these things will have to be clarified by the applicants when they lead their evidence in defence. It is then argued that in any case the applicant Smt. Rubi was a bona fide purchaser for value. I am not impressed by this argument at this stage, because Smt. Rubi Chatterjee is the mother of Jayant Chatterjee, who was the original purchaser of the property along with Samar Singh and Anil Mehra and may be expected to be in the know of things.;