Dismissed

Darshan Singh v. Gurmeet Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2012CRM-M/5045/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court disposed of a Section 482 CrPC petition filed to quash an order dismissing the State's revision against a discharge. The court dismissed the petition, noting no miscarriage of justice and that the petition likely violated the bar under Section 397(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; the impugned orders of the Sessions Judge and Judicial Magistrate were not interfered with.

Darshan Singh Vs Gurmeet Singh and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-5045 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-5045 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision: 21.02.2012

Darshan Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Gurmeet Singh and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶12

Present:Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶17

¶18

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶19

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing the Order dated 08.11.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby, the revision petition filed by State against the Order dated 21.12.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla was dismissed, as well as, Order dated 21.12.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, whereby, respondents No.1 to 5 were discharged from the offences qua which they were challaned.

¶20

It is contended that the last date for execution of Sale deed in pursuant to Agreement to Sell was 15.05.2003. However, on 08.08.2003, the petitioner returned the earnest money of ` 3 lacs to the respondent. The respondent duly returned back the Agreement to Sell. It is contended that after the Agreement to Sell was returned to the petitioner, he found

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-5045 of 2012

¶22

¶23

that the last date to execute the Agreement to Sell was changed from 15.05.2003 to 30.11.2003.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

It is admitted that ` 3 lacs which was the earnest money was duly returned back by the petitioner willingly. It is also admitted that the respondents returned the Agreement to Sell to the present petitioner. In any case, the petitioner himself called off the agreement on 08.08.2003 i.e much after the last date fixed for execution of the sale deed. As such, there appears to be no motive or reason as to why the respondents should have tampered with the date. Moreover, the said document was never misused by the respondents. As such, no loss was caused to the petitioner. Even otherwise, second revision petition is barred under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. The present petition is nothing but a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, the Court can interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, in case of any miscarriage of justice. However, there is nothing on record to show that there has been any miscarriage of justice.

¶26

Hence, no ground to interfere in the well reasoned Orders passed by the two Courts below.

¶27

Dismissed accordingly.

¶28

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶29

21.02.2012 gurpreet

Darshan Singh v. Gurmeet Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Singh v. Gurmeet Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhateri and Anr. Vs Govind Ram and Ors.

Usha Bansal Vs State Ofhy.

Chaman Lal Aggarwal Vs Panjab University & Ors.

Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana

Rajvir Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Roshandin Vs State of Punjab and Others