Gurnam Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6239 P&H

247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-31212-2021 in/and
                                        CRM-A-346-2021
                                        Date of Decisn: 6th July, 2022
Gurnam Singh.. Applicant

                         Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                              ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present :   Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the applicant.
            Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

                                ***

AVNEESH JHINGAN , J.(Oral)

1. The application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is filed for grant

of leave to appeal against acquittal of respondents No.2 and 3 (hereinafter

referred to as respondents) in Criminal Case no. COMI/179/2014, under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The application is accompanied

by an application for condonation of delay of 149 days.

2. The brief facts are, that as per the complainant Karnail Singh

along with Daljeet Singh approached him for selling land of Karnail Singh

measuring two kanals. He was asked to arrange Rs.3,00,000/- and come to

Tehsil Complex, Bathinda on 20th January, 2014 for executing sale deed.

On that day, instead of sale deed an agreement of sale coupled with a

delivery of possession of land was executed by Karnail Singh in favour of

the complainant and Rs.3,00,000/- were paid to Karnail Singh.

3. The complainant filed a suit for specific performance of the

agreement to sell in question. Vide judgment dated 17th July, 2018,

alternative prayer made in suit was accepted. The finding was recorded that

there was no agreement to sell, no document was produced to prove that

Karnail Singh was owner of the property in question. The agreement was

1 of 2

CRM-31212-2021 in/and -2-

CRM-A-346-2021

only for possessory rights to be transferred by Karnail Singh in favour of

Gurnam Singh (complainant) for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. The suit

was decreed for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. The trial Court considering that complainant failed to prove

the guilt of the accused, passed the judgment of acquittal.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the accused

failed to honour the terms of the agreement as no sale deed was executed,

the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused.

6. Even before this Court it is not contended that the findings

recorded in suit for specific performance were reversed.

7. It was held in Civil Suit that the agreement in question was not

agreement to sell but was only for possessory rights. The acquittal was on

failure of the complainant to prove the essential ingredients for invoking

Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC. There is no legal or factual error in

the impugned judgment calling for interference. No case is made out for

grant of leave. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court is plausible

reason.

8. The application is disposed of.

9. Since the application for grant of leave to appeal is disposed

of, the application for condonation of delay is disposed of accordingly.

(AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE th 6 July, 2022 Parveen Sharma Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable Yes

2 of 2