Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lalita Devi vs Raj Kumar & Ors on 9 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002554
242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-644-2017
Date of decision: 09.01.2025
LALITA DEVI
...PETITIONER
V/S
RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Akshit Mehta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned
judgment dated 16.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Hathin as well as impugned judgment dated 17.10.2016 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal,, whereby the respondents have been
acquitted by both the Courts below.
2. Briefly stated the case set up by the prosecution is that a complaint
was made by the complainant Lalita Devi who submitted that the accused Raj
Kumar (respondent
ndent No.1 herein) executed a registered agreement to sell
bearing vasika no.854
no dated 5.6.2011
.6.2011 in favour of Mahender S/o Tekchand,
wherein the vendor agreed to execute a sale deed of 6 kanal 0 marla land in
favour of any nominee that the vendee might nomi
nominate.
nate. Total sale
consideration was decided as Rs 22 lakhs and Rs 7,50,000/
7,50,000/- was paid in front
of the sub-registrar
registrar at the time of execution of such agreement. Later, as per his
requirement, the vendor took Rs 8 lakhs in installments and gave receipts. In
lieu
ieu of such agreement to sell, a sale deed bearing no.5944 dated 14.10.2011
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002554
CRR-644-2017
was executed in favour of the complainant for 5 kanal 0 marla. She claims that
in such sale deed,
deed the executor and his family members/witnesses assured her
that the land is devoid of any charges or encumbrances and that it is absolutely
owned by the executor. She claims that she later got to know that the vendor
Raj Kumar
umar in collusion with the other accused and with a motive of playing
fraud upon the complainant, procured a forged aand
nd fabricated agreement to sell
dated 25.6.2010 in respect of such 6 kanal of land in favour of accused
Narender (respondent No.3 herein).
herein). It is shown that on 25.6.2011 the date of
execution of sale deed in lieu of such agreement to sell was extended to
23.5.2012.
.5.2012. The complainant therefore claims that the accused persons in
conspiracy with each other and with a dishonest intention fabricated a forged
agreement to sell so as to cause wrongful loss to her. Hence the complaint.
3. Having heard the learned counsel
counsel for the petitioner and after
perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that there
is nothing on record to prove that last date for execution of agreement to sell
was so extended from 25.06.2010 to 26.06.2011 and the agree
agreement
ment placed on
record indicates that last date of execution was 26.06.2011 itself. Since the
prosecution has failed to prove the last date of execution of agreement to sell
being 25.06.2010, it cannot be concluded that the accused/vendor Raj Kumar
concealed the fact of existence of an earlier executed agreement to sell in
favour of accused
sed Narender as the same was not subsisting on 14.10.2011 i.e.
when the sale deed was executed as the agreement dated 25.06.2010 itself
states that if the sale deed is not executed on or before 26.06.2011, the same
shall stand cancelled. As such, only vaguee allegations have been levelled
against the respondents and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
the reasonable shadow of doubt.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002554
CRR-644-2017
4. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal
on the basis of re-appreciation
re of the evidence is subject to the settled law that
where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the
innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail
over the other pointing towards his guilt. (See
(See H.D. Sundara an
and
d others vs.
State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023;
Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others vs.
State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415).
415). A Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment passed in
i State of Haryana vs. Ankit and others passed CRM-A
A
No.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption of innocence
further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court.
5. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds tha
thatt learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in
findings recorded by the learned Court below, which warrants any interference.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
January 09, 2025
202 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
