Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Harjit Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
CRM-M No.5604 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Simranjit Kaur, AAG, Mr. Ishwar Pal Singh, Advocate, Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of disputed land agreements, the failure to file a suit for specific performance and lack of evidence of misrepresentation may lead to the dismissal of a complaint under Section 420 IPC.
Headnote:
Fraud - Land Dispute - IPC 420/467/468/471/34 - The court discussed the agreements to sell land, failure to register sale deeds, and fraudulent misrepresentation by the accused. The court found that the matter was of a civil nature and no offence was made out. The petitioner's argument for cheating under Section 420 IPC was dismissed as no suit for specific performance was filed, and there was no evidence of misrepresentation by the accused. The complaint was dismissed, and the petition was accordingly dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents/accused under Sections 420, 467, 471, 468, 471 34 IPC, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and failure to register sale deeds for the land agreed to be sold. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the revisional court upheld the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter in dispute was of a civil nature and no offence was made out. The petitioner's argument for cheating under Section 420 IPC was dismissed as no suit for specific performance was filed, and there was no evidence of misrepresentation by the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the dispute, fraudulent intention of the accused, and the applicability of Section 420 IPC for cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the matter was of a civil nature and no offence was made out. The petitioner's failure to file a suit for specific performance and lack of evidence of misrepresentation by the accused led to the dismissal of the complaint.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to avail his alternative remedy with regard to his civil rights, in accordance with the law.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. Challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 06.05.2009 (Annexure P2) passed by the trial Court dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner as well as the order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P4) passed by the Revisional Court dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case as set up in the order passed by the trial Court (Annexure P2) are as under:-
“The accused persons i.e. accused Nos.1 to 7 agreed to sell their land measuring 19 kanals 16 marlas out of 631 kanals 13 marlas and 11 kanals 16 marlas situated in village Kalwa, Tehsil and District Patiala to the complainant vide agreement to sell dated 16.01.2005 for a consideration of Rs.11,50,000/- per acre and by virtue of the said agreement to sell Rs.2 lacs were given as consideration and the date 31.12.2005 was fixed for execution of the sale deed. It is further submitted that as it was conveyed by accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 and 8 that they have purchased 200 kanals of land out of 631 kanals 13 marlas and 11 kanals 16 marlas situated at village Kalwa by virtue of the agreement dated 23.08.2004 and they have the right to further sell the said land to the persons of their choice, the said accused agreed to sell their land measuring 200 kanals out of the said land to the complainant vide agreement to sell dated 16.01.2005 for a consideration of Rs.11,50,000/- per acre and by virtue of the agreement the complainant paid Rs.23,00,000/- as consideration and Rs.75,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to the said accused before 15.05.2005 by the complainant and it was further agreed that an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was to be paid to the accused by the complainant before 20.12.2005 and the accused shall get the sale deeds registered of the purchase land from the original owners and further it was agreed that the balance consideration shall be paid up to 30.04.2006 and up to that date the complainant would pay the entire consideration. It is further, pleaded that in view of the above stated agreements to sell, the accused No.1 to 8 could only get the sale deeds registered of the land measuring 52 kanals 0 marlas after receiving an amount of Rs.88,00,000/- by getting executed four sale deeds and failed to get the sale deeds of the entire land from the original owners, which was agreed to be purchased by the complainant. In fact, the accused Nos.1 to 8 had deceived the complainant by executing the agreement to sell of the land of which they were not the owners. It is also pertinent to mention that the accused No.1 to 8 had not disclosed that they had dispute with the original qua the land abutting the main Baran Daun Kalan Road and it was also not disclosed that the original owners were demanding extra rate of the land of the land which was abutting Baran-Daun Kalan Road. The accused in fact had connived with each other and by not disclosing the true facts to the complainant executed and prepared agreement to sell and received valuable amount from the complainant as consideration amount only to cause wrongful gain to them and wrongful loss to the complainant and thus have committed the offence under Section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC, it is further submitted that if the accused disclosed about their dispute with regard to threat of land abutting the main Baran Daun Road, the complainant must not have agreed to purchase the land from the accused No.1 to 8. Accused No.1 to 8 admitted that they have committed fraud with the complainant and as they failed to get the sale deeds registered of the total land, they agreed to any back Rs.1,57,50,000/- to the complainant vide agreement dated 20.01.2006 and the accused No.9 was instrumental in getting the said agreement effected. It is further pleaded that the accused even failed to get said agreement implemented in toto.”
3. In support of the complaint, the petitioner himself appeared as CW1 and tendered the certified copy of the jamabandi as Ex.C1, photocopy of original agreements dated 16.
