High Courts(1984) 10 P&H CK 0023

Milkhi vs Bhan Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 October 1984 · Citation: (1985) 2 RCR(Criminal) 1

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.M.Tandon, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3205-M of 1984

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 366 words

J.M. Tandon, J.

1.

Milkhi petitioner entered into an agreement with Bhan Singh respondent on 771980 for the sale of his land measuring 24 Kanals and 8 Marlas. He was paid Rs. 600/ by way of earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 1561981. The balance sale price was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was provided in the agreement that in case the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed he will be liable to pay Rs. 6000/ to the respondent by way of damages apart from the refund of the earnest money. The petitioner was entitled to forfeit the earnest money in case of the respondent failed to abide by the terms of the agreement.

2.

The sale deed was not executed on 1561981. According to the respondent, the petitioner failed to abide by the terms of the agreement. The respondent filed a criminal complaint under sections 404/406, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner in which the latter has been summoned under Ssection 420, I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar, vide order dated 921982, which has been assailed in this petition under section 482, which has been assailed in this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the evidence led by the respondent in support of his complaint is to the effect that the petitioner did not abide by the terms of the agreement. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner sold the land to somebody else. The dispute between the parties regarding the infringement of the terms of the agreement on the apart of the petitioner is essentially of civil nature. The learned trial Court has erred in summoning the petitioner under section 420 I.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail

4.

The dispute between the parties is of civil nature. There is hardly any criminal intention involved therein. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained.

5.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar, dated 921982 is quashed.