Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) (Oral) - Challenge is to the judgment dated 12.09.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judg (Adhoc), FTC, Amritsar, whereby he uphold the judgment dated 02.12.2011 passed by learned CJM, Amritsar holding the petitioners guilty of offences punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment substantially for a period of three years.
(2.) The complainant Gurbinderbir Singh had lodged complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 25.08.1998 Paramjit Kaur, Inderjit Singh claiming himself to be Nirmal Singh came to his house and represented that they are attorneys of Rajinder Kumar and intend to sell shop cum office bearing plot No. 121 measuring 115 sq yards on City Centre Development Scheme, Amritsar. The said plot was originally allotted to Mrs. Inderjit Vasudeva and it was disclosed that on the basis of will dated 02.04.1998 Rajinder Kumar became owner and the petitioners were his attorneys. They also averred that they are legally empowered to alienate the property in question. An amount of 1,50,000/- was paid in cash by complainant to Paramjit Kaur and Nirmal Singh in the presence of Kulwant Singh and Bhupinderjit Singh. An agreement was executed on 25.08.1998. Paramjit Kaur and Nirmal Singh agreed to get the sale deed executed in their names from Amritsar Improvement Trust and further agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. One lac more was given by the complainant. However, on the stipulated date, Paramjit Kaur and Nirmal Singh failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. On inquiry, it was fund that no such plot was there in the name of Rajinder Kumar and thus petitioners cheated the complainant The trial Court after going through the entire evidence convicted the petitioners as mentioned above. The findings of the trial Court have been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar the matter has been settled and the parties entered in to compromised on 30.04.2013. The complainant agreed to withdraw the F.I.R against the petitioner and further agreed to make the statement in this respect before this Court (P-1). Thereafter, the petitioners filed CRM-M-16588 of 2013 for quashing of F.I.R No. 201 dated 05.07.2012 on the basis of compromise but vide order dated 20.05.2013 (P-2) learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew that petition with liberty to raise the plea of compromise in the appellate Court. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed CRM-M-16588 of 2013 for grant of same relief but the petition was dismissed on the ground that the second petition for the same relief was not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioners had submitted the order dated 20.05.2013 before the Appellate Court and requested the Court to decide the appeal in view of compromise entered between the parties, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners without even making any reference to the compromise.;