SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sher Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 29 January, 2019

CRM-A-919 -MA- (OM) 1


CRM-A-919 -MA-2013 (OM)
Date of decision : 29.01.2019

Sher Singh



State of Haryana and others
……. Respondents


Present: Mr.Yashjot S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for
Mr.B.S.Virk, Advocate for the applicant
Ms.Tanushree Gupta, DAG Haryana
Mr.Randeep Singh, Advocate for respondent no.s2 to 5

1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to
see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?



Complainant had filed a complaint under Sections 406, 420,

506, 120-B IPC against the private respondents. After trial, all the

respondents were acquitted by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Guhla vide judgment dated 6.8.2013.

Allegations levelled in the complaint shows that according to

the complainant, he paid Rs.3,50,000/- as advance to the accused to send

him to Spain. The money was paid in presence of Kandhara Singh (CW3).

Passport was also supplied but the accused neither returned the money nor

arranged the Visa and the ticket. In the Panchayat convened in the presence

of his father Jeet Singh (CW2), Kandhara Singh (CW3) and Tehal Singh

(CW5) in the house of the accused, the accused refused to return

1 of 2
17-02-2019 12:47:18 :::
CRM-A-919 -MA- (OM) 2

Rs.3,50,000/- and passport.

The learned Magistrate called for the report of the police under

Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter summoned the accused under Section

406 IPC only, holding that no offence under Section 420 read with Section

506 IPC is made out. Learned Magistrate after trial, charge sheeted the

accused under Section 406 read with Section 120-B IPC. Learned

Magistrate after the trial, acquitted the accused on the ground that Kandhara

Singh (CW3), who participated in the talks and in whose presence the

money was paid, not examined. Secondly, the documents regarding

withdrawal of Rs.1,80,000/- from the Bank was not proved. Learned

Magistrate also found some improvements in the statement of the

complainant. It was further recorded that Tehal Singh (CW5) has admitted

that he was not present at the time of payment or at the time the talks took

place between complainant and accused. Angrej Singh brother of the

complainant, while appearing as CW4, stated that in the Panchayat accused

admitted to make the payment and accused No.3 Jinder Singh took

responsibility to repay the amount. In other words, he was a guarantor of

the payment. Finding discrepancies, learned Magistrate granted benefit of

doubt to the accused.

I am of the view that after going through the evidence, learned

Magistrate has taken one of the two possible views. This Court cannot

substitute its opinion with the conclusion drawn by the learned Magistrate.

There is no ground to interfere in the judgment of acquittal.

Hence, application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed.

29.01.2019 (Kuldip Singh)
gk Judge
Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No

2 of 2
17-02-2019 12:47:18 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation