GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. MANISH CHAUDHARY
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-61
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 11,2013

GAJRAJ SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Manish Chaudhary Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The applicant, by means of present petition/application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 15.01.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Case No. 784 of 2009, under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, pending before the said Court.
(2.) Complainant (respondent herein) filed a complaint against the accused (applicant herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal. After recording the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, having found a prima facie case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, summoned him to face the trial vide impugned order dated 15.01.2010. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved.
(3.) An agreement to sell was executed between the applicant and the respondent on 03.11.2008 in respect of a piece of land situated in village Tapowan, District Tehri Garhwal. The accused, as per the conditions of the agreement, did not appear before the Sub Registrar, Deoprayag on the stipulated date. On a subsequent date also, the accused did not appear before the Sub Registrar for getting the Sale Deed executed. In stead, he gave an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured. The accused was not the owner of the land for which he executed an agreement to sell. Had the complainant known that the accused was not the owner of the land in question, he would not have paid the advance to the accused.;


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