VIJAY KUMAR SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was an agreement inter se the applicant and the father of the complainant. The agreement records that the father of the complainant is owner of approximately 5 Bighas of land situate at the place mentioned in the agreement. The agreement further records that the father of the complainant is agreeable to sell those 5 Bighas of land to the applicant, provided the applicant purchases 20 Bighas of land at the place mentioned in the agreement for and on account of the father of the complainant. It appears to be the contention of the complainant that as directed by the applicant, father of the complainant sold those 5 Bighas of land belonging to him to the nominees of the applicant, but the entire sale proceeds were kept by the applicant on the plea that the same would be utilized by him to purchase 20 Bighas of land for and on account of the father of the complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that the applicant purported to purchase roughly about 14 Bighas of land for and on account of and/or in the name of the father of the complainant, but later on, it transpired those lands are vested lands or acquired lands or lands not belonging to the vendors who purported to sell the same. It is the contention of the complainant that remaining 6 Bighas of land have not been purchased by the applicant in the name of or for and on account of the father of the complainant. It is being contented that in such circumstances, a case of cheating has been made out. As it appears to me that the complaint is purely working out of an agreement inter se the parties and, accordingly, it is a pure civil dispute. The fact remains that the father of the complainant sold 5 Bighas of land, may be, in terms of the agreement, under the directions given by the applicant. The father of the complainant allegedly did not receive the consideration for sale of such land. Father of the complainant may have permitted the sale proceeds of such land to be retained by the applicant. The purpose thereof may be was to fulfil the obligations of the father of the complainant under the agreement. The question is whether the applicant has discharged his obligations under the agreement. The matter is to be looked at by the civil court which shall be in, a position to give full relief to the complainant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that in the event a civil suit is instituted by the complainant within a period of three months from today, applicant shall not raise any plea of limitation before the civil court, and the concession as above shall be treated as an agreement under section 25 of the Contract Act. I also feel that such an undertaking is called for, inasmuch as the applicant has obtained a stay of the criminal proceedings on the present application. In those circumstances, the application is allowed. The criminal complaint is quashed with liberty to the complainant to file a suit before the appropriate civil court and in the event such a suit is filed within three months from today, the applicant shall not raise the plea of limitation pertaining to the said suit. In any event, it is further declared that in view of the complainant proceeding in a wrong forum, the time to file the suit stopped running from the date the complainant approached the criminal court.