CRM No.26902-M of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. 26902-M of 2008 Date of decision: 14.01.2009 Rameshwar & another ...Petitioners Versus Surinder Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 8th December, 2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri as also order dated 3rd June, 2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar as being illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a complaint was instituted in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri seeking summoning and trial of the respondents under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. However, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class refused to summon the accused and dismissed the complaint. The petitioners, therefore, preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, which was also dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has impugned the aforesaid CRM No.26902-M of 2008 2 orders on the ground that both the courts below have acted in patent error of law as there was sufficient material on record to summon the accused. According to him, sufficient evidence was produced before the trial court which called for summoning the accused. However, the complaint was dismissed in an illegal and arbitrary manner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. I am of the considered view that in the present case no ground is made out for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is apparent from record that there is civil litigation between the parties. The dispute in question arose only due to alienation of the suit property by the respondents i.e. accused in the complaint. The trial court came to the conclusion that since no injunction order was in operation at the time, the suit property was alienated, there was no question of any fraud having been committed on the complainants. In revision, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that ingredients of offence of cheating were not made out. The revisional court further came to the conclusion that even for the sake of argument, if it was assumed that accused Nos.1 to 5 were not owners of the land as the decree in their favour had been held to be void, it is only the purchasers i.e. accused No.6 to 12 who could have any grievance. The complainants would have no case for alleging that a fraud had been committed on them. CRM No.26902-M of 2008 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to interfere with the well considered orders of the courts below. The petition is thus dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 14, 2009 'rajpal'