VIRENDER SINGH Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C R M-16086-2014:

(2.) The instant application has been moved the applicantcomplainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 13.2.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kaithal, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant-complainant under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC has been dismissed and the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

(3.) Briefly stated, the applicant-complainant filed a complaint under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC claiming himself to be owner of agricultural land measuring 8 kanal representing 160/2187th share out of total land measuring 109 kanal 7 marlas comprised in khewat No.166 by virtue of mutation No.2507 dated 16.2.2006 situated in Patti Dogar, Tehsil and District Kaithal. It has been alleged in the complaint that the respondent-accused, entered into an agreement to sell dated 5.5.2008 with the applicant-complainant for the sale of aforesaid land for a consideration of Rs.10 lacs and received Rs.8,25,000/- in cash in the presence of witnesses being the earnest money and executed a separate receipt pursuant thereto on the same day i.e. 5.5.2008. The sale was agreed to be executed on or before 5.10.2008 in favour of the complainant. It was also agreed that the respondent-accused shall not mortgage or sell the suit land to any other person and in case, the respondent-accused do such act, he shall be liable for committing fraud. However, the date of execution and registration of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.10.2008 being Sunday, the complainant reached the office of Sub Registrar, Kaithal on 6.10.2008 along with balance sale consideration and requisite stamp fee and other expenses for execution and registration of sale deed, as per the agreement. But the respondent-accused did not turn up in the office of Sub Registrar, Kaithal to perform his part of the contract, though the applicant-complainant got his presence marked by way of sworn affidavit on 6.10.2008. On 7.10.2008, the applicant-complainant approached the respondent-accused and made a request to perform his part of the contract, but he started prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. On 24.8.2009, the applicant came to know about sale of 5 kanal 0 marla land out of the total land measuring 109 kanals 7 marlas by the respondent-accused in favour of Smt. Harbajan Kaur, accused no.2 in the complaint, despite the fact that the respondent-accused had already executed the agreement to sell dated 5.5.2008 with the applicantcomplainant in respect of land measuring 8 kanal and the respondent-accused had the possession of only 9 kanal of land.