Failure to Perform Obligations Not a Criminal Offense :P&H HC
P&H HC upheld the acquittal of accused in the case of Cheating (Usha Rani vs State of Haryana D.D 18 Jan 2023) and observed that failure to perform obligations under an agreement to sell does not normally give rise to a criminal offense and that the remedy for non-performance is to file a suit for specific performance.
The complainant Usha Rani filed a criminal complaint against accused Monika Sharma, Vishwas Sharma, Vikas Sharma, and Dharmender for offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of IPC. The complaint stated that the complainant entered into an agreement to sell with accused Monika Sharma to purchase a plot for Rs.15,25,000, of which Rs.14,75,000 was paid on 20.06.2010. The accused Monika Sharma did not show up for the execution and registration of the sale deed and later the complainant discovered that a fraudulently executed sale deed was made in favor of accused Dharmender.
The FIR was registered, and investigation was conducted. The accused Vishwas Sharma and Monika Sharma were arrested, while Vikas and Dharmender were found innocent. A challan was filed against Vishwas Sharma and Monika Sharma and charges were framed under sections 420, 406, 506, and 120B of IPC.
The prosecution examined seven witnesses, but three of them were given up by the Ld. APP. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where they denied the allegations and pleaded that they had been implicated falsely. The accused were acquitted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad.
The complainant filed an appeal against respondents No.2 and 3 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was dismissed.
Revision petition filed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 15.11.2021. The judgment dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.11.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad.
P&H High Court held that there were several material discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The delay of 1 year and 4 months in registering the FIR was viewed with suspicion, and the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses of the agreement was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution’s case. The absence of the scribe of the agreement also raised doubts about its due execution.
Further Held that the complainant’s admission of filing other complaints against different parties and entering into another agreement with the accused Vishwas in 2013 cast a substantial doubt about the authenticity of her present case.
Also held that the lack of information about the source of income used to pay the accused and the dismissal of the suit for mandatory injunction due to a lack of court fee also raised questions about the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Acquittal Upheld. Appeal Dismissed.
Usha Rani
Vs
State of Haryana and ors.
