ANIL KUMAR Vs. AJAI BUTAIL
LAWS(HPH)-1991-10-2
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on October 31,1991

ANIL KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
AJAI BUTAIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Ihave heard Shri T. R. Chandel at some length but I am not satisfied that the present is a fitcase where this Court should be persuaded to intervene in the matter in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/ S. 397, Cr. P.C.
(2.) The applicants before this Court are two brothers who filed a complaint against respondents Ajai Butail and his mother Smt. Usha Butail for having committed an offence u/ S. 420, IPC. In substance what they said in the complaint was that Ajai Butail as the general attorney of Smt. Usha Butail agreed to sell two residential flats occupied by tenants Smt. Leela Devi and Shri Joginder Lal Karol to the complainants on 30/04/1988 at Shimla for a sum of Rs. 90,000.00. An agreement to that effect was executed by Ajay Butail in favour of the father of the two complainants, namely, Shri Joginder Lal Karol. A sum of Rs. 5,101.00 was also received by Ajai Butail as earnest money from Shri Joginder Lal Karol in the presence of S/ Shri Vinay Sood and Dinesh Butail. Later, in spite of the agreement aforesaid one of the flats was sold by Ajay Butail to one Jatti Ram on 5/08/1988 for a sum of Rs. 24,500.00 and the other flat was sold by him on 17/11/1988 to one Sneh Lata for a sum of Rs. 25,477.00. Both these sale deeds were got registered in Tehsil Shimla. The complaint proceeds to recite some subsequent facts on the basis whereof it was inferred by the complainants that the accused persons had caused damages and harm to the complainants in body, mind, reputation and property and had cheated them. It has also been stated in the complaint that the accused persons were relatives of the complainants.
(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (1) Shimla before whom the complaint was registered examined the first complainant Anil Kumar on oath on 23/01/1989. A detailed statement relating to the filing of the aforesaid complaint and averring to the facts stated therein was made by Anil Kumar in which it is also stated that the accused persons had induced the complainants to part with a sum of Rs. 5,101.00though they never intended to execute the sale deed of the flats in favour of the complainants. It was asserted on oath that the accused persons had cheated the complainants inthat manner.;


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