Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1966 of 2010 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Gupta & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Upendra Vikram Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by the
C.J.M. Ballia, in Case No. 1067 of 2009, Dasarath Jee Vs. Pradeep Kumar
and others, whereby an application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. moved by the
revisionists was rejected.
It appears from the record that a complaint was filed by O.P. No. 2 against the
revisionists that revisionist no. 1 had executed an agreement of sale in favour
of O.P. No. 2 and took Rs. 1,50,000/- as earnest money. It was agreed upon
between the parties that the sale deed shall be executed within one year of the
execution of the agreement. However, before expiry of the period of one year
revisionist no. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of revisionist no. 2 and thus,
committed cheating with O.P. No. 2. The trial court was of the opinion that
the facts prima-facie show that the intention of the revisionists was to cheat
O.P. No. 2. It was also held by the court that it is a matter of evidence as to
whether the offence under which the summoning order was passed was made
out or not. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the application.
Heard Mr. U. V. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.
Mr. Singh argued that the revisionists had always been ready and willing to
perform their part of contract and they were also ready to return the earnest
money and therefore, no offence can be said to have been made out against
the revisionists.
In this case it hardly matters as to whether the revisionists inclined to execute
the sale deed or were also inclined to return the earnest money. The main
issue was that a cheating was committed or not with O.P. No. 2 and for that a
material fact is available on the record. It is apparent from the record that
revisionist no. 1 had executed a sale deed in favour of revisionist no. 2 before
expiry of the period agreed upon between revisionist no. 1 and O.P. No. 2.
This fact shows that in order to frustrate the agreement of sale the sale deed
was executed and this prima-facie depict the intention of the revisionists. In
such a situation, the trial court was perfectly justified in not accepting the
request of the revisionists.
I, in view of the above discussion, do not find any merits in the revision.
The revision is dismissed. However, it is directed that in case the revisionists
appear before the court concerned within fifteen days from today and apply
for bail, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and if there
is no impediment in disposal on the same day, the same day.
Order Date :- 22.7.2010
Pcl