(S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.)
Rajinder Kumar __________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Haryana _________________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 2008, decided on October 26, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The appellant is an accused who entered into an agreement to purchase certain piece of land admeasuring total 45 Kanals 10 Marlas, under an agreement of sale dated 04.07.1997 duly executed by first accused Bijender. It is a registered agreement of sale. Apparently, thereafter, the accused Bijender entered into another agreement of sale in respect of the same land with the complainant viz., J.P. Adhana on 20.02.1998. Thereafter, the accused Bijender completed the transaction and executed the sale-deed in favour of the appellant on 30.11.1998.
2. The complainant lodged an FIR against the appellant and the first accused Bijender under sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC’). After usual investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate framed the charge for an offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC only against the appellant.
3. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that ex facie the charge framed against the appellant under section 420 of the IPC is not tenable because the appellant’s agreement to purchase the aforesaid land is prior to the complainant’s agreement and it is, in fact, the complainant who may at all be answerable for a charge under section 420 since it is the first accused Bijender who has sold the land to him later. Significantly, there is no charge against the appellant under section 120B of the IPC, that is to say, for a conspiracy to cheat the complainant.
4. In these circumstances, a single charge under section 420 of the IPC cannot stand against the appellant who is merely a purchaser of land which the seller is said to have sold to the complainant. If the charge was that in concert with the first accused Bijender for any conspiracy the appellant tried to deprive the complainant of any value of a thing, the circumstances would have been different but that is not so.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 10.5.2002 of the learned Magistrate framing charge under section 420 of the IPC against the appellant. We order accordingly.
6. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court as well the order dated 10.05.2002 of the learned Magistrate framing charge under section 420 of the IPC against the appellant is set aside.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1298/2008
Rajinder Kumar ____________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Haryana ___________________________________ Respondent
Date : 26-10-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nirmal Singh Chechi, Adv.
Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Swati Jindal, Adv.
Ms. Srutisma Hazarika, Adv.
For Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Alok Sangwan, AAG
Mr. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Kadiyan, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
