CRM-A-919 -MA- (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CRM-A-919 -MA-2013 (OM)
Date of decision : 29.01.2019
State of Haryana and others
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
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 ?
KULDIP SINGH J. (Oral)
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)
Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
2 of 2
17-02-2019 12:47:18 :::