Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1631 (RAJ)

Ram Gopal v. Manohar Lal

2014-10-09

NISHA GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 28/07/2005 passed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Criminal Revision Petition No.90/1997 whereby, the said revision petition has been dismissed and the order dated 01/05/1997 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bayana dismissing Criminal Complaint No.18/1996 filed by the complainant-petitioner has been upheld. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition in brief are that petitioner filed a complaint with the averments that respondent No.1 agreed to sell a shop to the petitioner for sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid in cash and rest of the amount was agreed to be paid on the date of registry and possession was also handed over to the petitioner but in-spite of the insistence, the sale-deed was not registered in favour of the petitioner. Civil suit was filed in which temporary injunction was granted and to defeat the fruits of the property, respondent No.2 has further sold the property to respondent No.3 and thus, has cheated the petitioner. The court below has not properly considered the evidence of the petitioner, findings are perverse and ultimate loss has been caused to the petitioner hence, cognisance be taken against the respondents No.1 to 3. 3. Per contra, the contention of the counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 is that admittedly, respondent No.1 has not committed any offence. Mere breach of contract cannot be termed as cheating and petitioner is not having any privity of contract with the respondents No.2 and 3. Hence, no offence has been committed by respondents No.1 to 3 and the complaint as well as the revision petition have rightly has been dismissed. Hence, this petition by way of second revision is not maintainable. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has also adopted the same arguments as advanced by the counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-orders. 6. Hence, this petition by way of second revision is not maintainable. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has also adopted the same arguments as advanced by the counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-orders. 6. The only contention in the petition is that respondent No.1 has not executed the sale-deed in furtherance of the agreement to sale and court below has rightly relied upon on the judgment of this Court rendered in Madanlal v. State of Rajasthan : 1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346 , wherein it has been specifically stated that mere a breach of contract could not give rise to criminal prosecution and it is necessary to establish that the representation was false to the knowledge of the maker at the time it was made. Here in the present case, highest case of the complainant is that respondent No.1 has not complied with his promise and in view of the law laid down in Madanlal supra, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated on this allegation. 7. During the course of arguments, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that land has been sold to him inspite of the fact that Manohar Lal-respondent No.1 is not the owner of the land and hence cheating has been committed and reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in Darbara Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 2007(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1529 and Mahesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 2007(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1686 , where the petitioner was not having the title inspite of this, land has been sold but here in the present case, admitted case of the petitioner in the complaint is that respondent No.1 Manohar Lal is owner of the land and on the same averments, civil suit has been filed by the petitioner. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to say that respondent No.1 is not owner of the land. Hence, the court below has rightly held that no offence has been committed by respondent No.1. At the same time, contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has sold the land to respondent No.3. This is the independent transaction and petitioner has not shown his connection with the above transaction. He has no privity of contract with respondents No.2 and 3. At the same time, contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has sold the land to respondent No.3. This is the independent transaction and petitioner has not shown his connection with the above transaction. He has no privity of contract with respondents No.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 has never made any representation or inducement to the petitioner. The court below has rightly held that that presence of Ramswarop at the time of agreement is not prima-facie established as agreement to sale does not contain the signature of respondent No.2 and even in the complaint his presence has not been shown and after considering merit of the case, impugned-orders have been passed. 8. Hence, this petition by way of second revision petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.In view of the above, this petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. fails and is accordingly dismissed. The record be sent back to the court below forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******