SANJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present 482 Cr.P.C . application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.08.2015 passed by C.J.M., Firozabad and entire proceeding of Misc. Case No. 307 of 2014 (Bal Kishan Vs. Sanjeev and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 554 of 2013, under Sections 420 , 406 I.P.C., Police Station Dakchhin, District Firozabad.

(2.) Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that opposite party no.2 moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Magistrate concerned, contending that opposite party no.2 and applicant are well acquainted to each other. Applicant given an offer to opposite party no.2 to purchase his property including kothi and open land, measuring area 7530.28 sq. Ft. situated in Khasra No.468 Ka in Mauja Dholpura, Firozabad, in Rupees 70 lakhs as consideration money. Accordingly on agreement to sell was executed in between the parties on 19.09.2011. Applicant has given Rs.10 lacs through three cheques on dated 19.09.2011 and 31.12.2011. In agreement, it was agreed that rest money Rs.60 lacs will be paid by opposite party no.2 to applicant upto 31.05.2012 and applicant shall execute sale deed in favour of Opposite party No.2. Applicant encashed two cheques of Rs.2.50 lacs and one cheque of Rs.05 lacs was returned by applicant and opposite party No.2 paid Rs.05 lacs cash on 02.01.2012 in lieu of returned cheque. Opposite party No.2 has also paid Rs.5 lacs cash to applicant on 23.10.2011. Again on 22.03.2012 applicant received Rs.15 lacs cash from opposite party No.2. Hence applicant has received total Rs.30 lacs as earnest money from opposite party No.2. Despite receiving aforesaid amount as earnest money and despite repeated requests applicant did not execute the sale deed in favour of opposite party No.2, on pretext that there is a property dispute in between applicant and his brother Pankaj Kumar Agarwal. Applicant did not return the aforesaid earnest money to opposite party No.2 on his demand thus, applicant has cheated the opposite party No.2.