Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1630 (RAJ)

H. Sardar Khan v. Mohd. Ahsan

2017-07-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard. By way of this application for leave to appeal preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973 the applicant complainant seeks leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 12.6.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metro Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur Metro in criminal case No. 357/2010 whereby the respondent Mohd. Ahsan was acquitted from the charge under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 2. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the impugned judgment. 3. The applicant claims to have sold a residential property to the respondent and a registered sale deed was executed for the sale transaction carried out between the complainant and the accused was distinctly mentioned in the registered sale deed that the complainant had received the total sale consideration amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- from the accused. 4. He filed the complaint in question with the allegation that as a matter of fact the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- mentioned in the sale deed was not covering the actual value of the property and thus another agreement was executed between the parties under which the accused agreed to make payment of an additional amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- to the complainant for the very same sale transaction. In pursuance of the said agreement, two cheques for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each and one cheque for Rs. 50,000/- were handed over by the accused to the complainant. The cheques of Rs. 25,000/- were honoured whereas the third one issued for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- bounced upon which the complaint came to be filed. 5. The complainant admitted in cross examination that the registry was for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- which the accused paid to him by the date of execution of registered sale deed. The accused took a defence that the complainant attempted to cause hurdles in raising construction on the disputed premises which had been sold to him and under this pressure he executed and gave the cheques to the complainant even though no amount was due towards the sale transaction. The trial court accepted the defence version and acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 138 N.I.Act upon which this leave to appeal application has been preferred. 6. The trial court accepted the defence version and acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 138 N.I.Act upon which this leave to appeal application has been preferred. 6. This Court is of the firm opinion that the language of the disputed agreement by itself proves that the complainant was creating hurdles in the way of the accused to raise construction on the land which was sold through a registered sale deed after payment of valid and total consideration. It is mentioned in the agreement that henceforth the purchaser would be entitled to raise construction on the land without any objections being raised. Thus, apparently disputed cheque was not given by the accused towards any legally enforceable liability but was rather procured by the complainant almost by way of extortion. 7. Consequently, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.6.2012. The instant application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.