AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
The petitioner is facing trial in C.C. No. 489/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 415 and 420 IPC. Heard Sri Dinesh, Learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri G.A. Srikantegowda, Learned Counsel for respondent.
As per averments of complaint, the petitioner having entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant to sell his house for a consideration of Rs. 20,05,000/- has denied the nature of transaction by contending that there was money transaction and petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs from the complainant/respondent.
The learned Magistrate after recording sworn statement of complainant has issued process to the accused.
The Learned Counsel for respondent has made available the decree made in O.S. No. 12/2011 wherein, the trial court has granted decree for specific performance by accepting the agreement of sale pleaded by the respondent.
The Learned Counsel for petitioner relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SCW 6679 in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr vs State of Uttaranchal & Ors. would submit that, in order to attract an offence u/s 415 I.P.C., it has to be shown that accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise.
In the case on hand, the petitioner has not denied agreement of sale dated 12.11.2010 however petitioner has contended that he had not agreed to sell his property. On the other hand, he had executed agreement of sale as security for repayment of a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs borrowed from respondent. At this stage, the contents of documents and decree made in O S. No 12/2011 do not justify the stand taken by petitioner. The case before the trial court is posted for recording of evidence before charge.
Therefore, without going into further details of the case, I deem it proper to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to plead for discharge before the trial court.