Crl.M.No.16638-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.16638-M of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.6.2010 Ram Lal .......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J Petitioner Ram Lal has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for setting aside order dated 2.2.2010 (P.2) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be charge sheeted in case FIR No.190 dated 12.6.2008, P.S. Model Town, District Rewari under Sections 420/406/120-B; and order dated 3.5.2010 (P.3) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. A further prayer has been made for discharge from the charges. Facts in brief are that the complainant Jitesh Goyal purchased 10 kanals of land from co-accused Usha Goyal in Khewat No.118, Khatoni No.124, Rect. No.84, Killa No.26/2/2/1/1/2 vide registered sale deed No.6057 dated 19.10.2006 and further the complainant also purchased 8 kanals of land in the same khewat, khatoni and rectangle from the accused Madan Lal on 14.3.2007. Accused Usha Devi had claimed to be the sole Crl.M.No.16638-M of 2010 #2# owner in possession of land and accused Ram Lal along with Madan Lal and Devender, who were working as real Estate Agents, had facilitated the deal between accused Usha Devi and the complainant. Subsequently on 15.5.2008, complainant found, when he was served with the process regarding the case titled as Habli and others v. Jitesh and others that Usha Devi had earlier sold the land in dispute to Habli and suffered a decree dated 8.10.2005 in favour of Habli etc regarding specific performance. As a result, a complaint was filed by the complainant Jitesh Goyal and an FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, challan was also filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only the attesting witness of the sale deed dated 19.10.2006/14.3.2007 executed between the accused Usha Devi and the complainant and was not the beneficiary in any manner. He further submits that the petitioner was not in the knowledge of prior sale of land in dispute by Smt Usha Goyal to Habli. Learned counsel has further submitted that there are no allegation of any malafide on the part of the petitioner in the suit filed for recovery by the complainant-Jitesh Goyal for Rs.6.75 lacs against Smt Usha Goyal, therefore, it was contended that both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the petitioner be discharged of the charges. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid plea. Both the courts below have found that the petitioner Ram Lal real Estate Agent along with Madan Lal, another real Estate Agent had approached the complainant for purchase of the land in dispute, which had already been sold. Both Madan Lal and Ram Lal are real Estate Dealers operating at Rewari and it cannot be believed that they did not know of the prior agreement to sell and the decree of specific Crl.M.No.16638-M of 2010 #3# performance dated 8.10.2005 in favour of Habli, when accused Usha Goyal has also been claiming that the sale considerations were also passed on to Madan Lal. In any case, both the petitioner Ram Lal and Madan Lal had facilitated the deal. Allegation of conspiracy between the accused persons has been alleged. It is well settled that at the time of framing of charge, the courts have to see the existence of prima facie case and the competent court having exercised that jurisdiction and the revision petition against the same having been dismissed, this court finds no ground, which may warrant interference. Dismissed. June 28, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE