Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 3242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Joginder Kaur – Applicant
Versus
Surjit Kaur & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-A NO. 1101-MA of 2010
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate; For the Appellant/Complainant.
None; For the Respondents
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(4) - Petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal - Applicant contends that the respondents committed offences under IPC Sections 406, 417, 420, and 426, but were acquitted by the Trial Court - Acquittal affirmed due to lack of evidence supporting payments made - Evidence presented was deemed insufficient to establish proof of payment and motive - No legal error found in the lower court's decision. (Paras 3-12)
Facts of the case:
The accused agreed to sell land for Rs. 1,40,000/-; the complainant alleged non-registration of the sale deed post-payment, claiming problems with the registration due to the accused's actions and document handling. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantive evidence to contradict the Trial Court’s judgment and noted issues in the credibility and consistency of witness testimonies. (Paras 8-11)
Issues: The pivotal issues included verification of the sale agreement, the circumstances of the sale deed's non-registration, and the credibility of witness statements regarding payment. (Paras 4, 8, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the acquittal was justified, stating that evidence did not corroborate the complainant's claims of payment or registration issues, thus lacking merit for appeal. (Paras 11-12)
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks appeal against acquittal judgement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. complainant alleges failed sale deed registration. (Para 3) |
| 3. evidence presented by witness regarding payment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. credibility of complainant's claims questioned. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. no prejudicial error found in trial court's decision. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. application for appeal dismissed as meritless. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Instant application, under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicant/Complainant - Joginder Kaur, seeking special leave to appeal, against the judgment dated 14.06.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, in IPC Complaint No. 43, dated 07.01.2008, titled 'Joginder Kaur v. Smt. Surjit Kaur and another', whereby respondents-accused, namely, Surjit Kaur and Surinder Singh, were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 417, 420 & 426 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. It is noticed in the order dated 09.01.2017 that record was received and time was sought by respondents to examine the same. Thereafter, time and again matter was adjourned on the request of one side or the other. In the order dated 27.04.2018, this Court has already discussed that how at first instance, appeal filed before this Court was disposed of by giving liberty to file an appeal before the Court of Sessions, in view of the amended provisions of Section 372 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, appeal was filed before Sessions Court, but the same was also held to be non-maintainable, in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Tata Steel Limited v. M/s Atma Tube Products Limited and others, 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 1005. Thus, again applicant/complainant has approached this Court for the purpose of seeking special leave to appeal.
3. Facts leading to the filing of complaint are that accused persons agreed to sell the land measuring 1 Kanal - 13 Marlas, bearing Khasra No. 6//2/3 (1-13), situated in Village Balala, Hadbast No. 20, for total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and executed one sale deed dated 27.07.2007. Entire consideration amount, for purchase of said land, was paid to the accused. Complainant also averred that she had given money to Accused No. 1 - Surjit Kaur, for purchase of stamp-papers for execution of sale deed as well as Special Power of Attorney. On the stamp-papers of Rs.7,000/-, Deed Writer - Raj Gopal Singh scribed sale deed and entered the same at Serial No. 34 on the same date. Complainant paid Rs.1,40,000/- before Deed Writer and witnesses to the sale deed. After scribing of the sale deed, both parties appeared before Naib Tehsildar, Garhdiwala, for registration of sale deed, but the office time was over and next day was holiday. Therefore, they decided to appear on next working day. But due to ill idea in the mind of accused persons, they did not turn up for registration of sale deed. When the accused were asked by the complainant, she found them reluctant and accordingly a legal notice dated 30.08.2009, was issued, but they remained adamant. Civil litigation was also pending before the parties, therefore, present complaint was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant argued that as per complaint, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, i.e. total sale consideration, was paid in the presence of Deed Writer and the witnesses to the sale deed.
5. I have gone through statement of Deed Writer - Raj Gopal Singh, who appeared as CW-3. Examination-in-Chief and Cross-examination of this witness reads as under:-
"CW3: Raj Gopal Singh Deed Writer, Sub Tehsil, Garhdiwala on S.A.
I have brought the summoned record pertaining to 27.7.2007. I scribed the sale Deed dated 27.7.2007 at the instance of Surjit Kaur and Surinder Singh in the favour of complainant. The complainant has paid total sale consideration in the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the accused. I have scribed Sale Deed at the instance of Surjit Kaur and Surinder Singh in favour of the complainant. Both t
