SURINDER SINGH GILL Vs. RAVI LAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Surinder Singh Gill, has come up with this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the complaint filed against him by the respondent, the summoning order dated 10.10.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar(Annexure P-4), and order dated 6.4.2009 passed by Smt. Bimlesh Tanwar, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar(Annexure P-6), vide which she dismissed the revision petition filed against the summoning order.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the complainant-respondent filed a complaint against him under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC")on account of political rivalry, in which he was summoned under Section 420 IPC. He does not own any land in village Daulatpur and the allegations regarding the alleged sale, and transfer of possession are based on oral evidence. The complainant has not referred to any specific land which he agreed to sell. For the commission of offence under Section 420 IPC, it is necessary that a person with dishonest intention should induce any person to part with his property. No such dishonest intention can be inferred from the contents of the complaint or the evidence produced by the complainant. Even if the contents of the complaint are taken at their face value, even then no cognizable offence is made out against him.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner and he was never summoned for the offence under Section 506 IPC. Even if, the contents of the complaint are believed to be true, even then it cannot be said that he was having dishonest intention at the time, he is alleged to have agreed to sell the land in favour of the respondent. The respondent himself has contended in the complaint that at one stage, the possession of the land was given by the petitioner. That is also a factor for concluding that there was no such dishonest intention. When such is the case, it cannot be said that any such offence under Section 420 IPC is made out from the complaint. He has placed reliance on Arun Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and another 2006(3)RCR (Criminal) 793.