Criminal Misc. Petition challenging dismissal of a complaint alleging cheating regarding an oral sale agreement. The High Court held that lower courts' findings on insufficient evidence were neither perverse nor contrary to record and dismissed the petition.
Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Cr. M. P. No. 1420 of 2016
Chandrashekhar Rajput, S/o Shri Ramratan Rajput, aged about 45 years, occupation – Service, Sub Engineer Irrigation Department, R/o Shiv Mandir Road Kahiragarh, P.S. - Khairagarh, Civil & Revenue Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
----Petitioner/complainant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anant Bajpai, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
02/05/2019
(1) The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Sections 418 & 320 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against the respondent herein for taking cognizance stating inter alia though oral agreement to sell of the land was entered into by the respondent herein and obtained Rs. 1,71,000/- from the petitioner but the respondent herein did not execute the sale deed with regard to the said land and thereby cheated him and, therefore, he deserves to be punished and in support of the complaint, the petitioner examined himself and his wife Chandrakiran Rajput.
2
(2) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon by its order dated 9.5.2013 dismissed the complaint finding that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondent herein. On criminal revision being preferred, the revisional Court upheld the order of trial Magistrate, against which instant Cr.M.P. has been filed.
(3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant would submit that both the courts below have erred in holding that there is no sufficient material for proceeding against the respondent herein under Sections 418 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order.
(5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.
(6) A careful perusal of the complaint, it would appear that oral agreement to sell was entered into the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and there is no such written agreement to sell entered into between them. On appreciation for oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Magistrate has clearly recorded a finding that there is no sufficient material for proceeding against the respondent herein for commission of offence under Sections 418 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been affirmed by the revisional Court.
(7) After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and going through the
record , I do not find any good ground to entertain this Cr.M.P. as finding recorded by the both the courts below that there is no sufficient material for proceeding against the
3
respondent herein is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.
(8) Consequently, the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., being devoid of
merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
D/-
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the complaint founded on insufficient material is liable to be set aside.
Whether the finding that no sufficient material exists for proceeding under Sections 418 and 420 IPC is perverse or contrary to record.
Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC deserves to be entertained.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandrashekhar Rajput
Rajendra Dakaliya
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
