The single judge bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Manju Yadav and others Vs State held that intention and knowledge are prime elements required to be considered for considering the aspect of the commission of an offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the applicants agreed to sell the property on the sale consideration of Rs. 15 lacs, out of which, 5 lacs were already paid. Later on, it was discovered that the property was mortgaged, and no valid sale agreement was executed. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued notices to the applicants then, also neither the sale deed was executed nor the sale consideration was returned. Furthermore, the FIR was registered by the complaints for the commission of an offence under Sections 420, 506, 465, 468, and 120-B of the IPC.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the language of Section 463 is quite clear and sufficient by itself. It states that if anyone induces another person or party to deal with the property to enter into any express or implied contract while intending to commit fraud and knowing that the property in question was mortgaged, an offence under Section 420 of the IPC would be made out against the present applicants, and an offence under Sections 465 and 468 would also be brought.
It was furthermore observed that once the applicants were aware of the mortgage, they even agreed to sell the property, which speaks volumes about their dishonesty and, consequently, their desire to persuade a person to deliver any property in exchange for an untruthful or conceived statement as shown in the documents, i.e., the agreement for sale.
It was noted that intention and knowledge is a prime element required to be considered for considering the aspect of the commission of an offence under Section 420 of the IPC,
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the cognizance taken by the Court in Criminal Case, State Vs. Manju Yadav and others do not suffer from any apparent error, which could call for interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Manju Yadav and Others Vs State
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma
Case No.: C482 No. 1582 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Shivam Sharma
Advocate for the State: Mr. Siddhartha Bisht
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
