Back
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The present revision petition raises a challenge to the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated 01.06.2017 passed in the Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2013, as well as the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2013 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur in Criminal Case No.248/1 of 2008 arising out of FIR No.85 dated 29.03.2006 under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 423, 426 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Ganaur.
2. That briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2005, accused-Satish Kumar executed an agreement to sell for agricultural land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas being 24/3009 share, out of land measuring 150 Kanals 9 Marlas situated within the municipal limits of Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur District Sonepat, in favour of the complainant-Ramesh and received an earnest money of Rs.1 lakh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 31.03.2006. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused had also executed another agreement to sell in favour of one Naresh Dhiman S/o Rambhaj dated 29.06.2005 and the
The Revisional Court has the power to dismiss a complaint if it finds it deficient and lacking in evidence to support the allegations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must adhere to the specific mode of action and the statutory provisions in criminal law, including the requirement to condone delay ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction in cases of acquittal and the limitations on converting a finding of acquittal into one of convictio....
Execution of sale deeds exceeding a co-sharer’s share does not constitute forgery or cheating, reaffirming that civil disputes should not be criminalized without clear offences being present.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating under IPC; deception and fraudulent intention must be proven.
The court affirmed that disputes over property rights are civil in nature, and criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not warranted when a civil remedy is available.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
