Vinod Kumar vs Dinesh Kumar And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 7855 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vinod Kumar vs Dinesh Kumar And Another on 15 April, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050113



255                                                2024:PHHC:050113

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRM-A-79-2023
                                                  Date of decision: 15.04.2024

VINOD KUMAR
                                                                ...APPLICANT
                                       Versus

DINESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER                                       ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:       Mr.V.S. Rana, Advocate
               for the applicant.

                     *****

PANKAJ JAIN, J (Oral);

1. Complainant seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated

21.07.2022, whereby the complaint preferred by the applicant against the

respondents for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B

IPC registered at P.S. Ellenabad, stands dismissed thereby discharging the

respondents.

2. As per allegation leveled in the complaint, the complainant

claims that an agreement to sell dated 08.08.2013 was executed in his favour

by the respondents qua land. As per the agreed terms thereof the sale deed

was to be executed on or before 10.03.2014. The complainant claims that

though he appeared before the Sub-Registrar on the date fixed but the

accused failed to appear despite having received Rs.6,00,000/-, as earnest

money. Instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the

applicant/complainant, the accused rather transferred the land in favour of

his own wife on 14.11.2014.

3. The complaint was dismissed by the trial Court holding that it

was not in dispute that on the date, the agreement to sell was executed by

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050113

2024:PHHC:050113

the respondents, respondent No.1/accused was owner of the property and

even on the appointed date, he remained owner and was competent to

execute the sale deed. Thus there was no allegation that the respondents had

intended to deceive complainant from the beginning. No offence of cheating

withing the meaning of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

4. While assailing the judgment Mr.V.S. Rana, Advocate, submits

that the cheating is evident from the facts of the case as the respondents

despite having received the earnest amount failed to appear before the Sub

Registrar on the above said date.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and after going

through the paper-book, this Court finds that it is a case of mere breach of

the terms of the contract. On being asked as to whether the applicant filed

any suit for specific performance, Mr.V.S. Rana, Advocate, fairly submits

that no such lis was initiated by the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a case for grant

of leave to appeal as the view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be

improbable.

7. In view of the above, the present appeal seeking leave to appeal

is dismissed.

                                                  (PANKAJ JAIN)
                                                      JUDGE


15.04.2024
monika
              Whether reasoned/speaking?         Yes
              Whether reportable?                No




                                       2 of 2