Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. S.C. Bhandari for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Singh Rathore for Bhanwar Singh non-petitioner and Mr. K.C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor, for the State. It has been contended by Mr. S.C. Bhandari appearing on behalf of he petitioner that there is no material on the record to show that the representation, on the basis of which the money was alleged to have been obtained by the petitioner, was incorrect at the time it was made or was false to the knowledge of the petitioner. According to him, the non-petitioner No. 2 concocted a false story of having parted wish a sum of Rs. 500/- on the assurance of the petitioner that a registered deed of sale in respect of the house in question would be executed by the latter in his favour. The learned Counsel but there submitted that this concoction was made to bring pressure upon the petitioner to withdraw the execution proceeding for ejectment of Bhanwar Singh from the disputed house. In the alternative, Mr. S.C. Bhandar has urged, that, even if the prosecution case it taken to be true at its face, no criminal offence of cheating is made out against the petitioner and, if any case is made out, it is a case of mere breach of contract which is not necessarily cheating in the absence of dishonest or fraudulent intention of the petitioner, at the time when he entered into contract. In support of his above contention, Mr. S.C. Bhandari relied on Hari Prasad Cahmaria v. Bishnu Kumar Surekha , Superintendent and Remebrancer v. Mohan Singh Harnarain Shah v. Tribenilal 1973 Cr.L.J. 140 & Kanhayialal v. Kirorilal A.I.R 1955 NUC Raj. 4041, Mr. Ramsingh Rathore, learned Counsel for Bhanwarsingh, on the other hand contended that there is material on the record to show that at the time when the representation was made by the petitioner, he knew that it was false and with that knowledge he induced Bhanwar Singh non-petitioner to part with a sum of Rs. 500/-. According to the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, the petitioner practiced deception on Bhanwar Singh non-petitioner, by dishonestly or fraudulently representing to him that he would get the sale-deed of the house duly executed in the latter's favour upon payment of a further sum of Rs 500/- The non-petitioner believed such representation and gave the petitioner a sum of Rs 500/-, in the presence of Sonia and Prabhu witnesses. On the strength of these facts, Mr. Ram Singh submitted that the plea of the petitioner that he may be liable in a civil court under a contract or agreement to sell the home cannot b; considered a valid defence to the charge of cheating.