Sh. Ram Lal Bansiwal vs Sh. Mohan Lal Bansiwal & Others
2008 Latest Caselaw 1311 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          Crl.M.C.No.2591/2008

%                       Date of Decision: 11.08.2008

Sh. Ram Lal Bansiwal                                   .... Petitioner

                        Through Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                 Versus

Sh. Mohan Lal Bansiwal & Others                        .... Respondents

                        Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                   NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in               NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has impugned the dismissal of his complaint by

the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 27th February, 2007 and

dismissal of his revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge by order dated 23rd February, 2008 in Criminal Revision No.61 of

2007. The petitioner/complainant is alleged to have entered into an

agreement to sell, dated 9th December, 2002 with Mohan Lal,

respondent No.1, for a total consideration of Rs.12.00 lakh out of which

Rs.50,000/- was paid to respondent No.1 in advance and the balance

amount was payable on or before 31st March, 2003. On failure of

respondent No.1 to execute the conveyance in terms of agreement to

sell, dated 9th December, 2002, a suit for specific performance was filed

by him against respondent No.1 which is still pending adjudication in

the civil court.

The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has

executed sale deeds in favour of other respondents in respect of other

portions. It is also alleged that a store measuring 6' x 7', situated in

mezzanine floor, which is owned by the daughter of the petitioner has

also been sold in favour of other respondents.

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the revision Court has

held that the disputes are of a civil nature and though the petitioner

has tried to dress them and attribute criminal nature to the same the

petitioner, however, should not be permitted to use the prosecution to

put pressure for achieving their civil claims.

It is apparent that there is a civil contract, an agreement to sell a

portion of the property, and the respondent No.1 allegedly did not

perform his part of agreement and a civil suit for specific performance is

already pending. In the circumstances, there is a specific remedy in

civil law which has already been availed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on 1993 RLR

567, Ravi Kumar Nigam, Sathabalan v. State. Perusal of the judgment

relied on by the petitioner reveals that the said precedent is

distinguishable as in that case there was an allegation of trespass on

the basis of a document whereas in the present case there is no

trespass and the suit for specific performance is already pending.

Considering the facts and the orders of the courts below, no such

manifest error is apparent which will entail exercise of jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by this Court. There

is no infirmity in the orders dismissing the complaint of the petitioner

as the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against the

respondent for non-performance of agreement to sell executed by him is

still pending. There are no grounds to interfere in the facts and

circumstances and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.

August 11, 2008                                   ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'