1 2025:CGHC:53065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 35 of 2021 • Anil Agrawal S/o Shri Ramdas Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Bus Stand Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1. Rajkumar Tiwari S/o Shri Shiv Shanker Tiwari, Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Raigarh Road, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur(C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.). ---- Respondents ____________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appears along with Ms. Pooja Loniya and Shri Samir Rigri, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Shri Kishan Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.2 : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 30.10.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant-Anil Agrawal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29.03.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Place Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG) in Criminal SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.10.31 12:52:48 +0530 2 Revision No.2/2012, whereby, the order dated 13.12.2011, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patthalgaon in Criminal Case No.305/2011, framing the charge under Section 420 of IPC against the respondent No.1-Rajkumar Tiwari, has been set-aside. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that an agreement to sale was executed by the respondent No.1-Rajkumar Tiwari, on 25.08.2008 in favour of the appellant-Anil Agrawal, agreeing to alienate his share in the property admeasuring 100 x 109 square feet (25 decimal), which was recorded in the name of his father- Shiv Shanker Tiwari, for a consideration of Rs.12,25,000/- after receiving an earnest amount of Rs.3,25,000/- in presence of one Rupesh. It appears further that when the registered deed of sale was not executed in favour of the appellant, an FIR was lodged by him on 30.05.2011 against the respondent No.1, his brother- Vijay Tiwari and father- Shiv Shanker Tiwari and, after considering the statement of the appellant and others’ recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide its order dated 13.12.2011 in Criminal Case No.305/2011, has framed the charge under Section 420 of IPC against the respondent No.1- Rajkumar Tiwari alone and, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order framing the charge under Section 420 of IPC, the respondent No.1- Rajkumar Tiwari, has questioned the same in revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, where by virtue of order impugned dated 29.03.2012, passed in Criminal Revision No.2/2012, has reversed the said order dated 13.12.2011, framing the charge against the respondent No.1- Rajkumar Tiwari under Section 420 of IPC and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the revisional Court, while setting aside the charge framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class against the respondent No.1 under Section 420 of IPC, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record. While inviting attention towards the “Ekrarnama” executed on 25.08.2008, it is contended that the land in question was recorded in the name of respondent No.1, yet, he obtained an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- towards earnest amount while executing the alleged “Ekararnama” and has, thus, cheated him. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nagpur Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. P. Radhakrishna Alias Rajan and Ors., reported in 1997 Supreme (SC) 1854, and also has placed the reliance in the matter of Mahesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in 2007 Supreme (Raj) 2126. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, since the respondent No.1 has agreed to alienate the land in question with regard to the land of his share and, thus, he has not committed any kind of offence against him, and therefore, the learned revisional Court has not committed any illegality in reversing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, on 13.12.2011, while discharging the respondent No.1- Rajkumar Tiwari from the alleged offence. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that an agreement to sale was executed by respondent No.1-Rajkumar Tiwari in favour of the 4 appellant on 25.08.2008, with regard to the land as mentioned herein- above, which was recorded in the name of his father, namely, Shiv Shanker Tiwari after obtaining an earnest amount of Rs.3,25,000/- in presence of one Rupesh. A bare perusal of the alleged agreement, would reveal the fact that the respondent No.1 has clearly stated therein that the land was recorded in the name of his father and he would be selling only with regard to his share in the said property and, it appears further from the receipt placed on record that he has obtained, subsequently, a sum of Rs.20,000/- from him with the consent of the family members of him. It is to be seen further that though, in the statement of the appellant- Anil Agrawal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was stated that despite a request being made to him (Rajkumar Tiwari) and his son, they are not executing the registered deed of sale in his favour in pursuance to the alleged agreement to sale dated 25.08.2008, as his father, in whose favour, the land was recorded, was not agreed for its alienation, nor his brother- Vijay Tiwari was ready for it. Further of his evidence would show that the respondent No.1-Rajkumar Tiwari, his father- Shiv Shanker Tiwari and brother- Vijay Tiwari, all have obtained the alleged earnest amount of Rs.3,45,000/-. In view of such an admission, it cannot be said that the appellant was deceived by him fraudulently or dishonestly, so as to hold that his act falls within the definition of cheating provided under Section 415 of IPC. 7. That apart, a bare perusal of his testimony would show further that the said appellant has, however, not stated that on which date, they refuse to execute the registered deed of sale in his favour. Be that as it may, after completion of more than 2 and ½ years, the alleged report was 5 lodged by the appellant, on 30.05.2011 without disclosing the material facts as to how he was cheated by him. In view of such circumstances, it cannot be said that the alleged offence was committed by him. 8. Insofar as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court, as was placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant are concerned, the same, however, appears to be made entirely on different footing and, would, therefore, distinguishable from the facts involved herein. 9. It is to be noted here further that during the pendency of this appeal, certain documents, like copy of plaint has been filed by the appellant on 08.12.2014 and, a bare perusal of the alleged plaint would show that much after the lodging of the alleged report, dated 30.05.2011, the said civil suit has been instituted in the year 2014, seeking enforcement of Specific Performance of Contract against the respondent No.1- Rajkumar Tiwari, his brother- Vijay Tiwari and one Smt. Sanju widow of Dev Kumar, along with other respondents, namely, Madan Lal Agrawal and Kapil Goyal, in whose favour, the registered deed of sale with regard to the land in question was made by them. Therefore, in such circumstances also, I do not find any substance in this appeal. 10. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita