1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 27.10.2018 in criminal revision no.67/2017 by 20th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore arising out of order dated 04.01.2017 in criminal case no.1084/2017 by the JMFC, Indore (M.P.) whereby setting aside the order of JMFC, Indore connection with the present revision petitioners.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent through power of attorney holder and Manager Sanjay Singh filed a complaint against revision petitioners along with Dilip Singh Goyal, who is the husband of petitioner no.1 and father-in-law of revision petitioner no.2 and 3 for taking cognizance under sections 418, 420, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC. Alternative plea was that directions be issued under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for registration of FIR against four persons by In-charge, Police Station- Lasudiya, District Indore (M.P.). The allegations in the complaint was that Dilip Singh Goyal approached the office of respondent situated at 1, Panchvati, A.B. Road, Indore (M.P.) and discussed for sale of his 0.506 hectare land comprising survey no.600/2 at Village Thawalay, Tehsil-Mhow District-Indore (M.P.) disclosing the urgent need of money. When Sanjay Singh examined the revenue documents of the proposed land then he found that Dilip Singh is not bhoomi swami of that land. Dilip Singh disclosed that the land is recorded in the name of present revision petitioners and he has the right to sale the land and agreed for that. Respondent expressed willingness to discuss the matter with persons whose name the land is recorded then present revision petitioners came to their house and they agreed to sale the land and respondent expressed willingness to purchase the said land and cheque No.747986 of Rs.20 lacs dated 12.04.2014 was provided. After receiving the consideration amount respondent was assured that within one or two months the sale deed shall be executed and Dilip Singh Goyal executed a receipt dated 12.04.2014 in this regard in the form of agreement to sale. After a lapse of two months period respondent contacted to Dilip Singh Goyal then Dilip Singh Goyal intimated that the family is disputing the proposed sale submitting that the land is ancestral and they are not willing to sale the land and they will return the amount within period of one month. Present revision petitioners and Dilip Singh Goyal misguided by rumor that the land have been sold to some other person. Police did not proceeded on this complaint and it came to know that many criminal cases are pending against Dilip Singh Goyal. When he approached Dilip Singh Goyal he intimated that he had sold the land to some other persons and denied to returned the consideration amount and hurled filthy language and extended the threat to kill. When police did not proceeded then respondent filed the compliant.

3. Before the JMFC Indore the manager Sanjay Singh was examined under section 200 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 and witness Pankaj Saklecha has been examined as PW-2 and Omprakash Rathore has been examined as PW-3 under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. JMFC Indore collected Annexure- P/8 from P.S.-Lasudia Indore and vide order dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure- P/9) took cognizance against Dilip Singh Goyal under section 420 of the IPC and dismissed the complainant against the present revision petitioners recording the finding that there are no ground to proceed further against these revision petitioners.

4. Challenging the order of JMFC, Indore a revision petition was preferred and 20th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore allowed the revision petition partially and ordered to take cognizance against revision petitioners also. The prayer for registration of offence and other sections was disallowed.

5. Challenging the order of revisional court this revision petition is preferred on the ground that JMFC Indore has appreciated and observed that there was no agreement between revision petitioners and complainant and no documents were produced with regard to the transaction with the revision petitioners. A private complaint was only an improvised version of the complaints made to the police to falsely implicate the family members of Dilip Singh Goyal as an arm twisting exercise. No explanation was tendered for omission of names of the revision petitioners in the complaints made on 05.12.2014 and 09.03.2016 to the police. There is no prima facie material available to show that the offence of cheating was committed to the revision petitioners.

6. Heard.

7. Counsel for the respondent opposed the revision petition and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

8. Perused the record.

9. Before examination legality of the impugned order Annexure-P/1 is reproduced as below:-

          "RECEIPT RECEIVED WITH THANKS A SUM OF RS.20,00,000/- (RS TWENTY LACS ONLY) FROM BHOPAL MCTOPS PVT.LTD., INDORE AGAINST FULL & FINAL PAYMENT OF 02 (TWO) BIGHA AGRICULTURE LAND KHASRA NO.600/2 ADMEASURING 0.506 HECTARE SITUATED AT THAWALAY, THE. MHOW, A B ROAD, DIST INDORE, THIS LAND IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF (1)MRS. SANGEETA W/O DILIP SINGH GOYAL (2) MS. UMA W/O SHAKTI SINGH GOYAL (3) MRS.SHWETA W/O KRISHNA GOYAL ALL RESIDING AT PIGDAMBAR (MHOW) M.P. THIS RECEIPT IS TO BE TREATED AS SALE AGREEMENT AND I UNDERTAKE & HAVING SOLE POWER TO SALE/ ENTER INTO SALE AGREEMENT OF THIS LAND. IN CASE OF ANY DISPUTE BY THE ABOVE SAID LAND OWNERS. I WILL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE AND I ALSO UNDERTAKE TO WRITE THAT I WILL REFUND ABOVE SAID AMOUNT ALONGWITH RS. 7.50 LACS AND TOTALLING TO RS. 27.50 LACS WITH IN 03 (THREE) MONTHS FROM TO DAY. (DILIP SING GOYAL) DATE 12.04.2014 PLACE- INDORE (M.P.)"

10. 20 th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore reversed the finding of the JMFC, Indore recording the reasons that in recording the finding there is no prima facie evidence against the revision petitioners regarding for commission of offence of cheating & to aid Dilip Singh Goyal in the commission of offence of cheating, JMFC Indore has overlooked the evidence. The evidence as mentioned in para-7, 8 and 9 of the judgment is that Sanjay Singh Sisodiya (PW-1) has mentioned that revision petitioners came in his office with Dilip Singh Goyal and consented to sell the land. Thereafter, he handed over cheque of Rs. 20 lacs value to Dilip Singh Goyal. The reference of Pankaj Sacklecha (PW-2) is to the effect that he deposited the amount in the account of revision petitioners through cheque and RTGS and evidence of Omprakash Rathore (PW-3) is to the effect that he handed over a cheque of Rs.20 lacs to Sanjay Singh Sisodiya (PW-1) to hand over to the family members of Dilip Singh Goyal. The details of cheque are mentioned as No.747986 of Rs.20 lacs dated 12.04.2014 value Rs.20 lacs.

11. Now come to the legality of the above findings. There is no material that any amount was transferred in the account of revision petitioners either through cheque or RTGS as stated by Pankaj Saklecha (PW-2). Receipt of Annexure-P/1 dated 12.04.2014 does not bear the signature of revision petitioners. There is no mention in Exhibit-P/1 that revision petitioners received any consideration amount Annexure-P/2 and Annexure-P/3 also does not contains the averment that revision petitioners entered into agreement with the respondent. Annexure-P/1 discloses the knowledge of respondent that the land is recorded in bhoomi swami right of the revision petitioners. Knowing all these facts he has not entered into contract with the revision petitioners. He is not ensuring that any power of attorney was executed by revision petitioners in favour of Dilip Singh Goyal.

12. The findings recorded by the revision court that there is evidence that revision petitioners committed cheating with the respondent or aided to Dilip Singh Goyal in the commission of cheating with the respondent are perverse. The material produced before the JMFC Indore does not satisfy the test to proceed further against revision petitioners for offence of 420 of the IPC as required in section 204 of the Cr.P.C.,1973. Case was covered by section 203 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 and trial court has properly recorded the findings after considering Sanjay Singh Sisodiya (PW-1) and witnesses Pankaj Saklecha (PW-2) and Omprakash Rathore (PW-3) and Annexures P/1 to P/3. Accordingly, this revision petition succeed and order of the appellate court order dated 27.10.2018 in criminal revision no.67/2017 is set aside and order of the JMFC, Indore order dated 04.01.2017 in criminal case no.1084/2017 is restored.

13. With the aforesaid, revision petition is disposed off.