The single-judge bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the Uttarakhand HC held that the propriety of the agreement for sale cannot be disturbed until and unless the same is put to challenge by the applicants before the competent Court by adopting a legally reckoned competent procedure.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the agreement for sale was executed in the favor of the opposite party and when the sale deed was not executed then, the civil suit was initiated. The criminal case was filed for the offense under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC on the ground that the agreement of sale was executed under a false pretext and is a false document.
Contentions of the Applicant
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that the agreement for sale was considered to be void as the same was executed in favor of the complainant, who is not a resident of India.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that it is not true that he is not a resident of India and it was furthermore contended that in order to make an agreement for sale to be void then, the applicant has to get it declared to be void by the competent court.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the validity of the agreement for sale cannot be questioned unless it is brought up by the applicants before the appropriate court through a legally recognized procedure.
Based on this consideration, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the fact that the sale agreement was signed under false pretenses and with fraudulent documentation cannot be addressed at this time because doing so would constitute sitting over the civil judgment.
Decision of the court
With the above direction, the hon’ble court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Jagtar Singh Vs State
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma
Case No.: C-482 No. 1594 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy A.G
Advocate for Respondent no. 2: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
