LAW FOR ALL

quashed.- u/s.420 IPC -The Criminal Petition No.10714 of 2009 is, accordingly, allowed. when the land dispute arose after the agreement of sale, it cannot be inferred that the dispute existed even by the date of agreement of sale, much less considering that the petitioners were aware of the same and deliberately suppressed the same before the second respondent. = a sweeping general statement that the de facto complainant later came to know that the petitioners were aware about the land dispute is not sufficient to constitute the offence u/s.420 IPC. This is all the more so where it is not even stated as to the source of information of the second respondent that the petitioners were aware about the land dispute. Where admittedly there is land dispute and admittedly when the land dispute arose after the agreement of sale, it cannot be inferred that the dispute existed even by the date of agreement of sale, much less considering that the petitioners were aware of the same and deliberately suppressed the same before the second respondent. Barring for the land dispute, the claim of the second respondent becomes unsustainable. Where source of information of the second respondent is not spelt out, the criminal complaint against the petitioners deserves to be quashed, as the case squarely falls under guidelines 1 and 5 of Bhajanlal's case.