GANESH S/O VITTHALDAS CHANDAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-107
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on August 08,2017

Ganesh S/O Vitthaldas Chandak Appellant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vasanti.A.Naik, J. - (1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the first information report registered against the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
(3.) Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus: The petitioner and the respondent No.4 had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of plot No.96 at Mouza Sawangi in Wardha District on 07/03/2007. The parties were bound by the terms and conditions recorded in the agreement of sale dated 07/03/2007. There were some disputes between the parties and the petitioner did not execute the sale deed of the property that was agreed to be sold by the agreement dated 07/03/2007. On 28/02/2017, i.e. ten years after the execution of the agreement of sale, the respondent No.4 lodged a report alleging therein that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under section 420 of the Penal Code. It was alleged by the respondent No.4 in the said complaint that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 had entered into an agreement for selling the plot of land for a sum of Rs.2,30,750/ and a sum of Rs.80,000/ was paid by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner towards earnest amount and the balance consideration was liable to be paid by the applicant from time to time. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and his partner were called upon by the respondent No.4 from time to time to execute the sale deed of the concerned plot in favour of the respondent No.4 and / or to return the amount that was paid to the petitioner towards earnest money and the consideration for the execution of the sale deed. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner started avoiding the respondent No.4 by not receiving his calls and by disconnecting and switching off the phone. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had cheated the respondent No.4.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.