Crl. Misc. No.M-30485 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-30485 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.11.2010 Ajmer Singh ....Petitioner Versus Anil Sandhu ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned judgment/order dated 07.09.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide which, the revision petition against the summoning order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar, was accepted. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the petitioner vide order dated 16.05.2009, issued summons against the respondent under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision petition against the said order. However, the said revision petition was accepted and the order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar was set aside and the matter was ordered to be remanded back to the trial court for passing appropriate order afresh in the light of the observations made before the said Court. Crl. Misc. No.M-30485 of 2010 2 Hence, the present petition. The facts as contended by the petitioner himself are that the respondent namely Anil Sandhu executed agreement to sell with him and gave assurance to the effect that he got a valid agreement to sell in his own name with regard to land measuring 112 Kanal 13 Marla situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Sultanpur, Hadbast No.158, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar from their original owner namely Surender Singh, Narender Singh son of Niranjan Singh and having right to execute registered Sale Deed in his name and thereafter, he entered into agreement to sell dated 20.03.2006 and earnest money to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- was duly paid to accused Anil Sandhu. It was further contended that no date of the agreement to sell executed between respondent with original owners i.e. Salinder Singh and Narender Singh has been mentioned in the agreement to sell dated 20.03.2006. It was further submitted that the alleged agreement dated 11.01.2006 was never produced before the court below and the court below only on the oral assertion made by the respondent remanded the matter back to the trial court with the observation that the controversy is purely with regard to validity of agreement and has wrongly remanded the matter back to the trial court to pass appropriate order afresh in the light of observation made before the said Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. After hearing, the Court does not find merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of Agreement to Sell dated 20.03.2006 shows that the present petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent Anil Sandhu knowing fully well that he was not the owner and that Anil Sandhu was entering into the agreement with the present petitioner with respect to the purchase of land on the basis of an Agreement to Sell between him and the original owner Surender Singh Crl. Misc. No.M-30485 of 2010 3 and Narender Singh. It is, therefore, apparent that the respondent did not conceal the fact that he was not the owner and that he had only the agreement to sell in his possession. Thus, there is no illegality in the order dated 07.09.2010, vide which, the revision petition was accepted and and the order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar was set aside and the matter was ordered to be remanded back to the trial court for passing appropriate order afresh in the light of the observations made before the said Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, nothing here-in-above shall have any bearing on the merits of the case. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 11.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet