- (1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for setting aside the order, dated 20.5.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, and the order dated 14.5.2011 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner impugning the summoning order, dated 20.5.2011 (Annexure P-1), was dismissed.
(2.) The facts in a nut-shell are that the petitionercomplainant, Verender Kumar, filed a complaint against the respondents, namely, Dhanpat Ram, Tilak Raj, Mahesh Miglani and Satnam Dass Miglani, for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 423 and 120-B, IPC, alleging that there was dispute between the petitioner-complianant, Verender Kumar, and respondent No. 2, Tilak Raj, regarding a house and other properties. A suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner-complainant against respondent No. 2, Tilak Raj, on 27.11.1999, which was decided in his favour on 8.9.2006, by the then learned Civil Judge, Panipat. Vide order dated 2.9.2002, the learned Civil Court ordered to maintain status quo till the decision of the case on merits. In the month of July, 2006, the petitionercomplainant came to know that respondent No. 2, Tilak Raj, in collusion with his co-respondents, wanted to take possession of the part of the property, the subject matter of the suit, from the petitioner-complainant by executing a false and fabricated sale deed in favour of third person. As soon as the said fact came to the notice of the petitioner-complainant, he informed the office of the Sub-Registrar, Panipat, about the order of status quo passed by the learned Civil Court.
(3.) The petitioner-complainant also came to know through Kewal Krishan that on 30.4.2006, the respondents in collusion with other persons hatched a conspiracy to play fraud and commit cheating with the petitioner-complainant. In furtherance of the conspiracy, respondent No. 1, Dhanpat Ram, succeeded in getting the sale deed executed in his favour from respondent No. 2, Tilak Raj, in respect of a room of 11 Square Yards, during the pendency of the civil suit, despite the order of status quo. Respondent No. 1, Dhanpat Ram, and respondent No. 2, Tilak Raj, deliberately to cause loss to the petitioner-complainant and to gain wrongfully, colluded with their co-accused for performing the unlawful act despite the fact that respondent No. 1, Dhanpat Ram, was not entitled to purchase the property on 5.9.2006, since the said property was subject matter of the civil suit pending before the learned Civil Court.;