REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JITENDER KUMAR Appellant

V/S

RAM KISHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHEO SWARUP VS. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED]
SURAJPAL SINGH V. STATE [REFERRED]
TULSIRAM KANU V. STATE [REFERRED]
MADAN MOHAN SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED]
ATLEY V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED]
AHER RAJA KHIMA V. STATE OF SAURASHTRA [REFERRED]
S.W.PALANITKAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
BALBIR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
M.G. AGARWAL V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
NOOR KHAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
KHEDU MOHTON VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
LEKHA YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
BISHAN SINGH GURDIAL SINGH HARDIAL SINGH SURJIT SINGH HARBANS SINGH HAZUR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
SHIVAJI SAHABRAO BOBADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
KHEM KARAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
UMEDBHAI JADAVBHAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
K GOPALREDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
TOTA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
RAM KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
MADAN LAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED]
SAMBASIVAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
BHAGWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
HARIJANA THIRUPALA VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [REFERRED]
C ANTONY VS. K G RAGHAVAN NAIR [REFERRED]
RAM NARAIN POPLY VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. K GOPALAKRISHNA [REFERRED]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
STATE OF GOA VS. SANJAY THAKRAN [REFERRED]
MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRM No. 47036 of 2013 :

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner-complainant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, against the accused-respondents, alleging that accused No.2 being a property dealer approached him purchase a plot measuring 210 square yards consisting in Rect. No. 5, Killa No. 21/1/1, 21/1/3, 21/1/4 of Khewat/Khata No. 372/252, situated in village Sarai Alawardi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. After verifying the revenue record, an agreement was executed between the complainant and accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1. Rs. 10,000/-were paid by the complainant to him as advance. Ultimately, sale deed was executed by accused No.1 on 13.1.1999 for due consideration. But the Patwari concerned refused to incorporate the said sale deed in the revenue record as the sale was effected of more area i.e. 210 square yards than owned and possessed i.e. 110 square yards by accused No.1. Both accused No.1 and 2 thus intentionally and deliberately cheated him. Both the accused are related to each other. It is further stated by the petitioner-complainant that the accused have further executed a registered sale deed on 28.1.1999 in favour of Smt. Anita wife of Raj Kumar regarding the same property, already sold to him. To prove the above said allegations preliminary evidence was adduced and vide order dated 13.11.1999 only accused No.1 was summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Accused No. 2 was not summoned.

(3.) Charge was framed against the accused on 15.4.2010. Both the parties led evidence and on conclusion of trial, judgment was passed by the trial Court dismissing the complaint and acquitting accused No.1 of the charges levelled against him.

Click here to view full judgment.

JITENDER KUMAR Vs. RAM KISHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address