Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 22.2.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Padampur in Cr.Case No.106A/2014 whereby, the learned trial Judge took cognizance against him for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur in revision vide order dated 18.11.2016.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 complainant filed a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Padampur on 16.5.2013 alleging inter-alia that the petitioner Saidittamal had sold half portion of his agricultural property ad measuring 5.15 Bighas to the complainants grandfather Shri Brijlal through a registered sale deed. Shri Brijlal executed a Will of the said land in favour of the complainant and his brother which continues to be in their possession. However, the complainant claims to have received information that the accused petitioner fraudulently mortgaged the very same chunk of land which he had sold long back, with the Oriental Bank of Commerce and took loan thereupon. Upon coming to know of the said fraudulent act of the accused, the complainant met him and asked him to repay the loan and clear the land of all encumbrances but the accused bluntly refused to do so. Thereupon, the complainant proceeded to lodge an F.I.R. No.96/2013 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of numerous persons and proceeded to submit a negative Final Report with a conclusion that the complainant party did not get the mutation carried out in their favour despite the registered sale made long back and the accused inadvertently took the mortgage loan on the land as the entire chunk of land continued to stand in his name in the revenue record. The accused repaid the total loan amount with interest thereupon and cleared the bank's dues and no loss whatsoever was caused to the complainant. The complainant however was not satisfied with the Final Report and submitted a protest petition which came to be accepted and the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. vide order dated 22.2.2014. As mentioned above, the order taking cognizance was affirmed by the revisional court by order dated 18.11.2016. Both these orders are under challenge in this misc. petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) Learned counsel Shri Chawla drew the Court's attention to the statement of Gulab Ram, the Patwari Halka recorded by the Investigating Officer, who stated that even after the sale made by the petitioner in favour of the complainant's grandfather, land ad-measuring 2.253 hectares remained in Saidittamal's name in the revenue record. Saidittamal's took loan from the OBC by mortgaging 1.884 hectares (7 Bighas 11 Biswas) of land only.;