- (1.) CRM No. 47036 of 2013 : After hearing counsel for the applicant and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 421 days in filing this criminal revision stands condoned. CRM No. 47035 of 2013 : Allowed as prayed for. CRR No. 3525 of 2013 : The instant criminal revision has been filed against judgment dated 11.4.2012, dismissing the appeal filed against the impugned judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, whereby complaint filed by petitioner against the accused-respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC has been dismissed and accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner-complainant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, against the accused-respondents, alleging that accused No.2 being a property dealer approached him purchase a plot measuring 210 square yards consisting in Rect. No. 5, Killa No. 21/1/1, 21/1/3, 21/1/4 of Khewat/Khata No. 372/252, situated in village Sarai Alawardi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. After verifying the revenue record, an agreement was executed between the complainant and accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1. Rs. 10,000/-were paid by the complainant to him as advance. Ultimately, sale deed was executed by accused No.1 on 13.1.1999 for due consideration. But the Patwari concerned refused to incorporate the said sale deed in the revenue record as the sale was effected of more area i.e. 210 square yards than owned and possessed i.e. 110 square yards by accused No.1. Both accused No.1 and 2 thus intentionally and deliberately cheated him. Both the accused are related to each other. It is further stated by the petitioner-complainant that the accused have further executed a registered sale deed on 28.1.1999 in favour of Smt. Anita wife of Raj Kumar regarding the same property, already sold to him. To prove the above said allegations preliminary evidence was adduced and vide order dated 13.11.1999 only accused No.1 was summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Accused No. 2 was not summoned.
(3.) Charge was framed against the accused on 15.4.2010. Both the parties led evidence and on conclusion of trial, judgment was passed by the trial Court dismissing the complaint and acquitting accused No.1 of the charges levelled against him.;