Allegations of Cheating: Court’s Legal Analysis

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a plot measuring 1 (Kanal) on 27.05.2013 with Malkit Kaur, wife of Surender Singh resident of Dhillon Colony, Near Electricity Grid, G.T.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-the-rights-of-possessors-in-long-standing-legal-dispute/

In the aforesaid complaint, reference was made to two other transactions entered into by Darshan Singh and prayer was that an amount of 29,39,500/-be got recovered from the property dealers.

The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No.2 who claims himself to be the husband of vendee had filed two complaints earlier with the same set of allegations and those were consigned to record on the basis of the legal opinion received opining the case to be of civil nature.

A perusal of three complaints filed by respondent No.2 clearly suggest that from the initial prayer for return of the amount paid by him, subsequently the allegations of cheating was made.

On the material placed on record by the parties, it is evident that an Agreement to Sell was executed by the appellant in favour of the wife of respondent No.2, namely Sarabjit Kaur for sale of plot measuring 1 (kanal). Though, in the aforesaid complaint reference was made to the Agreement to Sell in question, however there was no complaint made against the appellant.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-divorce-petition-filed-by-husband-and-provides-guidelines-for-disclosure-of-assets-and-liabilities-in-maintenance-proceedings/

Thereafter, Darshan Singh (respondent No.2) made another complaint to DIG, Ludhiana on 05.10.2016 which again was enquired into and a finding that earlier identical complaint was filed as no criminal offence was made out and the second complaint was consigned to record.

There is nothing on record to suggest that any notice was issued by the respondent No.2 or the vendee to the appellant to get the sale deed registered just either before expiry of the last date fixed for executed of sale deed or immediately thereafter.

When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/to-produce-the-certificate-issued-under-section-65b-of-the-act-was-rejected-by-the-trial-court-supreme-court-upholds-trial-court-order-regarding-certificate-under-section-65b-of-evidence-act/

As a consequence, F.I.R.

Case Title: SARABJIT KAUR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (2023 INSC 188)

Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000581-000581 / 2023

Click here to read/download original judgement