SARJERAO SHITOLE Vs. MAHARAJ NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this revision are that the applicant sold a piece of land to the non - applicant for Rs. 1,500 - and received the price. After this it was discovered that part of the land sold did not belong to the applicant. On these facts the non -applicant filed a complaint against the seller under Section 420 I.P.C. The trial Court after recording statement of the complainant and taking some evidence framed a charge against the applicant. Against this, the applicant first of all filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, contending that the criminal proceedings are misconceived. The revision was rejected by the Sessions Judge. Now the applicant has filed this revision before the High Court.

(2.) MR . Patankar, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is an indemnity clause in the sale -deed and that in view of it, criminal proceedings cannot be launched. But when an act gives rise to a criminal as well as civil liability, I do not see why the aggrieved party cannot follow any line of action which he may like to choose. In the circumstances I see no valid ground for quashing the charge in revision.