HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 199 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sangam Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present application under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to grant special leave to appeal to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Room No.4, Agra in Complaint Case No.4955/2019 (Naresh Vs. Gopal and others) registered under Sections 418, 419, 420, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Agra. 3. The prosecution case is that, the appellant claims title over plot No.6/51 situated at Heeng Ki Mandi, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Agra on the basis of will executed by one Premwati, in favour of mother of the appellant Mrs. Chandrakanta @ Chunna Devi. It is alleged that neighbouring land plot No.6/50 area 26.5 sq.yd. belongs to respondent No.1- Gopal. 4. Respondent No.1 Gopal executed a sale-deed in favour of respondent No.2 Gita Baghel of plot No.6/50 area 74 sq. yd. including 47.5 sq.yd. land of appellant's plot No.6/51. Respondent No.1- Gopal inherited only 26.5 sq.yd. land of plot No.6/50 from his father Daulatram. Respondent No.3 and 4 were marginal witnesses of the sale-deed, on this basis allegations of conspiracy and criminal breach of trust was levelled against Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sujan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohan Kant Baghel, Pawan Kumar, Sangam Singh Naresh .....Applicant(s) Gopal And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) all the respondents. 5. On perusal of materials available on record and on the evidence collected by the trial court, it has emerged that appellant's mother Chandrakanta Devi had sold 35 sq. mtr. of land of plot No.6/51 in favour of one Santosh who was examined as P.W.-2. This fact is admitted by complainant and his witnesses P.W.-2 Santosh that he has purchased 35 sq. mtr. of land from appellant's mother in plot No.6/51. 6. It is also noteworthy that the will deed produced before the trial court itself shows transfer of only 29.5 sq mtr. of land and not 88 sq. yd. area of land as claimed by the appellant. 7. Apart from the said will, there is no material to establish that any additional land was ever purchased or possessed by the appellant or his predecessors. The record further reflects that neither the appellant nor his family members were residing on the disputed property. 8. Learned trial court upon due consideration of the material on record has rightly held that the dispute even if taken as face value is purely civil in nature, referring to title and measurement and does not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 418, 419, 420, 120B I.P.C. No dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction has been made out. 9. At the stage of admission of appeal this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the warranting interference. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on appreciation of evidence and settled principle of criminal law. Accordingly, the present application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present application for special leave to appeal is dismissed. January 29, 2026 P. Pandey A378 No. 199 of 2024 2 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad