Criminal Application No. 467 of 2004 · Uttarakhand High Court

In brief, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent no.2-Surendra Kumar stating therein that on 18.3.1977, the petitioner agreed to sell land in dispute to the respondent no.2 for Rs.93,600/- out of which Rs.30,000/- was received on the same day by the respondent no.2 and the receipt thereof was also given by him. The sale deed was to be registered till 18.6.1977 by the petitioner. It was further stated that the respondent no.2 was given the possession of the Field No.15 and 16, while the agreement was entered for the Field Nos.12 and 2 13 with the assurance that the registry of the aforesaid fields will be done in favour of the respondent no.2. It is further stated that the petitioner, well knowingly that the said land was in possession of the respondent no.2, made the registry of the aforesaid Fields No.14/2, 15 and 16 on

25.11.98 in favour of Harjinder Singh and Narvail Singh, while the petitioner had earlier made an agreement to sell the said fields in favour of respondent no.2. Further, due to the aforesaid dispute, some litigation also continued and an agreement on 31.7.2000 was entered and in compliance of the said agreement, two cheques each Rs.1.25 lacs, in total Rs.2.50 lacs were given to the respondent no.3 by the respondent no.2 and the payment of those cheques were also made in favour of respondent no.3, however even then the said agreement dated 31.7.2000 was neither complied with nor the registry of the aforesaid fields was made in favour of the respondent no.2. As such, it was stated that the respondent no.2 was cheated Rs.30,000/- by the petitioner while the respondent no.3 also cheated the respondent no.2 to the tune of Rs.2.50 lacs. Thereafter, in the court, the complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C., who in his statement, reiterated the contents of the complainant. The court also called for a report u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. from the P.S. Kaladhungi. After perusing the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Haldwani vide order dated 5.7.2004 summoned the petitioner-Harbhajan Singh u/s 420/406/468 IPC and co-accused Puran Singh Jalal (respondent No.3) was summoned u/s 406 IPC. Against the said order dated

5.7.2004, a criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner before Sessions Judge, Nainital, which was dismissed vide order dated 1.10.2004. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and he has been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find 3 any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.2, the order passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court and the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the offence u/s 420/406/468 IPC is made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above- said discussion, particularly that the petitioner took Rs.30,000/- from the respondent no.2 in lieu of sale consideration but neither the registry of the fields in question was made in favour of the respondent no.2 nor the payment was returned to him and he was thus cheated by the petitioner.

Even an agreement dated 31.7.2000 was entered into for the settlement of the dispute, for which the respondent no.2 gave two cheques of Rs.1.25 lacs each, in total Rs.2.50 lacs, to the respondent no.3 and the payment was also received by the respondent no.3-Puran Singh Jalal, however he too did not comply with the said agreement dated 31.7.2000 nor the registry of the land in dispute was made in favour of the respondent no.2. Accordingly, I find that the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 468 IPC are prima facie clearly made out against the petitioner and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the applicant to face trial. Even the Sessions Judge has also rightly dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of trial court. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law.

It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the complaint as well as in 4 the statement of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the police report called for by the trial court u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 2.2.2005 stands vacated. Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.) July 6, 2010