[2025:RJ-JP:39489] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1018/2008 Narain Lal S/o late shri Murlidhar, aged about 60 years, R/o Dhani Jastari, Tan Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through PP, Jhunjhunu 2. Narsing Prasad S/o Shri Mangu Raam, R/o Dhani Jastari, Tan Srimadhopur, Police Station Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta Ms. Sampti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Tanmay Dhand HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 24/09/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.08.2008 passed by learned ACJM, Srimadhopur whereby respondent No. 2 was acquitted under Section 418 of the IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution led affirmative evidence with regard to the fact that respondent entered into an agreement to sale with the petitioner on 02.05.1992 and received Rs. 1,50,000/-, however, respondent sold the said property through registered sale deed to Mohri lal, Chima Ram, Hardev Singh and Dhanni Devi. It is also contended that the trial court has gone beyond the evidence and observed that the agreement was cancelled. The order of the trial court suffers from patent illegality. Therefore, the acquittal order passed by trial court [2025:RJ-JP:39489] (2 of 2) [CRLR-1018/2008] may be set aside and respondent No. 2 may be convicted under Section 418 of IPC. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that material witnesses PW-1 Rajendra Pareek, PW-4 Jagdish and PW-5 Bhagwan Sahay have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story that petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 2. It is also contended that non fulfillment of an agreement itself is not an offence under Section 420 of IPC. It is further contended that petitioner instead of approaching the criminal court ought to have file civil suit for specific performance, therefore learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent, the revision petition being devoid of any merits, deserves dismissal. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. The material witnesses PW-1 Rajendra, PW-4 Jagdish and PW-5 Bhagwan Sahay have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story, they have deposed that petitioner was not having possession of said land. Mere non fulfillment of conditions of an agreement does not attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC, until it is proved that from inception their exists intention to cheat. The fact also reveals that the said agreement was executed in the year 1992, however, the report was lodged in the year 1999. Even, if it is presumed that respondent has not fulfilled the conditions of agreement then petitioner was free to file the suit for specific performance, therefore the revision petition being devoid of any merits stands dismissed. 6. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /15