IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1554 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.7.2011. Amit Kumar Aggarwal ...... Petitioner Versus Balwan Singh & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Balwan Singh-respondent filed a complaint under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506/120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code before Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu. By order dated May 11th, 2009, the accused-petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 420 IPC. After leading pre- charge evidence, by order dated May 8th, 2010 SDJM, Loharu dismissed the complaint. The complainant filed a revision. Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani by order dated April 1st, 2011 allowed the revision, set aside the order of SDJM, Loharu and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to decide it afresh. Against this order, the petitioner-accused has filed the present revision. 2. Facts. On September 7th, 2005, the petitioner claiming himself to be the attorney of his relations viz. Mana Devi, Vasudev, Hari Prakash, Mamta and Nirmala entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 109 kanals and 3 marlas to Balwan Singh-respondent-complainant. The petitioner received a sum of Rs.2 lacs as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed and registered in the month of January, 2006. On the agreed date, the complainant reached the office of Sub-Registrar for execution and registration of the sale-deed but the petitioner did not turn up. Hence, the complaint. Criminal Revision No. 1554 of 2011 (2) 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner never deceived the complainant and it was agreed upon between them that if he fails to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement to sell then the petitioner will pay back the amount of earnest money with interest. 4. Indeed, petitioner was not owner of the land in respect of which he executed the agreement to sell on behalf of his relations after receiving Rs.2 lacs from the respondent-complainant. It is also an admitted fact that as on date, he did not repay the amount to the respondent. Entering into an agreement on behalf of his relations which he failed to execute, prima-facie shows that he cheated the respondent-complainant. Otherwise too, Additional Sessions Judge has only remitted the case to the trial Magistrate to decide the matter afresh. 5. In considered opinion of this Court, no ground is made out to accept the revision. 6. Dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 21.7.2011. SN