Crl. Revision No.1482 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR No.1482 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.7.2009 Amit Kumar Tyagi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rakesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 1st April, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby he set- aside the order dated 13th June, 2008, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, discharging accused Raj Bahadur Tyagi and Shashi Bala and remitted the case to the court of Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner as per law. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by one Sat Narayan Sharma stating therein that he was induced by the accused to part with an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- with a dishonest intention. Petitioner handed over the sale-deed of his house to the complainant as a mortgagee. However, the property which was subject matter of the mortgage, was already sold to one Beerpal Singh by a registered sale-deed dated 18th January, 2005. The complainant thus alleged that the accused in conspiracy with each other, had cheated him Crl. Revision No.1482 of 2009 2 of an amount of Rs.2,65,000/-. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint by observing that dispute was basically of civil nature and the complainant had the option of filing a civil suit. The complainant preferred a revision petition before the court of Sessions. The revision was heard by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who set-aside the order passed by the Magistrate observing that the complainant could avail of both civil and criminal remedies. He, thus, held that the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against. Other two accused were, however, discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad was against law and not based on proper appreciation of the controversy. According to the counsel, dispute was clearly of civil nature. No offence of cheating was made out. The order, therefore, deserves to be set-aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record annexed with the petition. It is evident that in the complaint, clear cut allegations of cheating were made by the complainant. He alleged that he had been induced to part with an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- by the petitioner. However, the property, which was mortgaged, had already been sold to one Beer Pal by a registered sale-deed. In view of the allegations, it is not possible to hold at the Crl. Revision No.1482 of 2009 3 very initial stage of entertaining the complaint that no offence is made out. The law is well settled that a person can pursue civil and criminal remedies simultaneously for one transaction. In my considered view, the complaint could not have been dismissed on the ground that the complainant could not continue the criminal case as civil remedy was available to him. I thus find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 13, 2009 'rajpal'