PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"), the accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 15-10-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "ipc" ).
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as also the record of the trial court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed, for which cheating is alleged, was executed by the complainant and while executing the sale deed, if any offence of cheating is committed then unless the sale deed is quashed, petitioner cannot be put to trial in a criminal court. It was further contended that the matter is of civil nature and the parties have resorted for the remedy to the civil court and, therefore, the finding of the civil court will be binding and under these circumstances, it will be proper either to wait for the decision by the civil court or to quash the criminal proceedings. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State refutted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the order framing the charges passed by the learned trial court. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the complainant is a widow and illiterate lady who has been cheated by the petitioner who is none else but the real younger brother of the deceased husband of the complainant and, thus, submitted that the order passed by the trial court calls for no interference. Complainant Smt. Radha Devi Widow of late (Shri) Manphool lodged an FIR on 17-3-2000 with Police Station, Muklawa, district Sri Ganganagar, inter alia, alleging therein that she inherited the agricultural and measuring 2 Bighas in Chak No. 16-TK, Murada No. 4. On the death of her husband, the land was mutated in her favour. The accused-petitioner, who is the younger brother of her husband, by deceitful means and fraudulent intention, got executed a sale deed of the land in question in his favour without paying any consideration under the belief and garb that the complainant executed a document for giving the land on contract (Theka) for cultivation purpose. From the FIR and the statement of other witnesses, it is clear that the complainant, who is an illiterate widow, brought this matter to the knowledge of the Panchayat and a Panchayat was convened to resolve this controversy. The accused, before the Panchayat, admitted in clear terms that he got the land of the complainant transferred in his favour by a registered sale deed and no consideration was ever paid by him to the complainant for the alleged sell. In the presence of various members of the Panchayat, the accused- petitioner executed an agreement on a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 100/- which is on record. By this agreement, it was agreed that he would pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant as the price for one and half Bigha of land in two installments, i. e. Rs. 60,000/- on 15-12-1999 and remaining Rs. 60,000/- on 15-12-1999 and remaining Rs. 60,000/- on 25-4-2000 and would re-transfer the land measuring half Bigha in favour of the complainant for which he will execute a sale deed. There was also some agreement with regard to path way. Despite his unequivocal admission before the various members of the Panchayat and execution of the agreement dated 11-2-1999, the accused-petitioner, by a dishonest and fraudulent intention, has neither paid the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- nor returned the possession of land measuring half Bigha, as such committed the offences of cheating as well as criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the said amount in question for his wrongful gain. I have carefully gone through the statement of various prosecution witnesses recorded by the police, who were the members of the Panchayat. I have also gone through the said agreement. The specimen signatures of the petitioner was taken in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raisinghnagar and sent to the Handwriting Expert for opinion. The FSL report issued by the State Forensic Science Laboratory is on record. From the opinion of the handwriting expert, it is clear that the specimen signatures of the petitioner are similar to his admitted signatures. Thus, prima facie, the execution of the agreement dated 11-2-1999 is established.
(3.) AT the stage of framing the charge, the trial court is required to consider the material placed before it by the investigating agency and after hearing, it has to form an opinion as to: whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. If on consideration and hearing, the trial court is of opinion that there is a ground to presume that the accused has committed the offences then the charge has to be framed and the court may proceed with the trail. In the instant case, on careful scrutiny of the material available on record, including the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the agreement and the FSL report, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused-petitioner has committed the offences noticed above and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the learned trial court suffers from any irregularity, illegality or perversity. It has next been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is of a civil nature and as such the criminal proceedings should be quashed. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1), has held that quashment of FIR or a complaint in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions. Same view has been reiterated in Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi (2), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. The Court further observed as under:- " It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. " ;