JUDGEMENT
D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. -
(1.) The instant Revision application is directed against the order dated 15.9.2005 passed by the learned Court below, whereby the prayer of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr PC for their discharge from the case was rejected.
(2.) THE case against the petitioners was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the informant Smt. Bilia Mahtain at Dhansar Police Station. The allegations as contained in the FIR are that the informant is the owner of a piece of land under khata Nos. 24 and 25 which constitutes her 1/5th share inherited from her father. The petitioner No. 1 is the niece of the informant while the petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the petitioner No. 1. Being closely related, both the petitioners had expressed their desire to purchase the informant's land to which she agreed.
The accused persons, namely, the present petitioners however, persuaded the old lady to accompany them to Kolkata for execution and registration of a sale deed on the plea that the Registration of the sale deed at Kolkata can be done on a much lesser fee than what was chargeable at Dhanbad. The informant believing the accused persons, accompanied them to Kolkata along with one Mangal Rewanl and on 16.10.1993, the accused persons got a deed executed by the informant and the deed was registered at Kolkata. However, the accused persons did not pay the settled consideration amount promptly and assured the informant that they will pay the money on their return to the village. Thereafter, inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the informant, the accused persons did not pay the consideration amount.
(3.) AFTER about 10 years in the month of September, 2003, the petitioner No. 1 proposed to sell the informant's land to a prospective purchase, namely, Nand Lal Gupta. Before entering into a contract of sale, the prospective purchaser approached the informant on 15.9.2003 in order to verify as to whether the informant had legally transferred the proposed land to the petitioner No. 1 and he produced a photocopy of a deed, which was represented by the petitioners before him as the deed of transfer executed by the informant in their favour.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.