Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pawan Kumar @ Rakesh S/O Jaswant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2022
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6967/2022
Pawan Kumar @ Rakesh S/o Jaswant Singh, R/o Hulmana Khurd,
Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Dhansingh S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Village Bhojpuri, Police
Station Shahjahanpur, District Alwar.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5359/2022
1. Ramesh S/o Mannaram, R/o Hulmana Khurd, Tehsil
Mundawar, District Alwar.
2. Rajesh S/o Rohtash, R/o Village Bawadi, Tehsil Neemrana,
District Alwar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Dhansingh S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Village Bhojpuri, Police Station Shahjahanpur, District Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP
Mr. Pankaj Agarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
Judgment reserved on : 23/08/2022
Date of Pronouncement : 29/08/2022
1. In both these petitions, the petitioners have sought for quashing of FIR No. 166/2022 registered with Police Station Shahjahanpur, District Bhiwadi for the offence under Section 420 (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 11:53:17 PM) (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022] IPC on the ground that the FIR does not contain any allegation against the petitioners and they are victims of malicious prosecution for personal grudge. Both the cases involve identical facts and grounds of challenge, hence are decided by this common order.
2. According to FIR, Banwari Lal, father of the complainant died on 28.4.2022. After cremation of the dead body, the nephew of the complainant namely Manish S/o Mitthan Lal left the house and came only on the 12th day of the ritual. Thereafter he again left the house. Conduct of Manish raised some suspicion in the mind of the informant and the informant got information from SBI Bank that Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan standing in the name of Banwari Lal was cleared on 26.4.2022 through Manish and Manish got NOC from the Bank. Without knowledge of the legal heirs of Banwari Lal, 0.46 hectares of land was transferred sold to petitioner Ramesh Chand Yadav. The conspiracy was hatched by Manish and petitioner Rajesh for getting a sale deed executed by Banwari Lal on 26th April, 2022 itself in favour of Ramesh Chand Yadav. The FIR was lodged on 18.5.2022. Simultaneously, a civil Case No. 46/14/2022 was brought before learned Additional District Judge, Mundawar by all the sons and daughters of late Banwari Lal for cancellation of sale deed referred in the FIR. In the civil suit, the informant of this case as well as father of Manish are plaintiffs of the suit and petitioner Pawan and Rajesh are not party to the suit. The plaint does not show any statement against the petitioner Pawan rather it stated that Manish, Rakesh and Ramesh Chand Yadav defendant No.1 of the suit, were serving some stupefying substance to keep mental condition of Banwari Lal unable to understand the nature of the transaction.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 11:53:17 PM)
(3 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Pawan submits that said Banwari Lal had executed an agreement to sale the same property to the petitioner on total consideration of Rs. 18 lacs. Mr. Ramesh Chand was a witness on the said agreement to sale. However Ramesh Chand got the sale deed in his name on payment of total consideration of Rs. 7,31,600/- and the consideration money was paid in the Bank account of Banwari Lal. The complaint does not show that there was any forgery in the agreement to sale between the petitioner Pawan and late Banwari Lal nor there is any allegation that the petitioner Pawan was beneficiary to the transaction.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant respondent contends that the disputed sale deed was executed on 26.4.2022 and Banwari Lal died on 28.4.2022. The consideration money of the sale was transferred to the Bank Account of Banwari Lal on 30.4.2022 after the death of Banwari Lal, Banwari Lal was carrying a bank account in the State Bank of India, hence there was no reason to open a Bank Account in the Kotak Mahindra Bank on 26.4.2022, therefore, there was something fishy in the entire deal.
5. One thing is apparent that the informant of this case neither in the impugned FIR nor in the civil suit has made any averment against the petitioner Pawan's involvement. Therefore, evidently, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner Pawan is attended with malice and ulterior motive to wreak vengeance which is one of the ground for quashing of the FIR as held in State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors., reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335. (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 11:53:17 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022]
6. In the case of Rajeev Thapar Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing:
"(i) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?"
7. In the case on hand, the accused petitioner Pawan has relied on material of the prosecution i.e. the statement in the FIR and averments made in the plaint of civil suit which the private respondents cannot deny. None of the two documents contain any suspicion against the petitioner Pawan's involvement, hence evidently, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner Pawan would be an abuse of the process of law.
8. In the result, the impugned FIR qua petitioner Pawan stands hereby quashed and this petition stands allowed. S.B.Cr. Misc. (Petition) No. 5359/2022
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners Ramesh and Rajesh contend that only suspicion has been raised in the FIR and suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Moreover, from the record, it is evident that the father Banwari Lal first cleared the (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 11:53:17 PM) (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022] loan of the State Bank of India taken on the land under transfer. Only thereafter, executed the sale deed in respect of his 1/3 share in the property and the consideration money passed through account. The registration of the document was completed in the presence of the registering authority, therefore, only on suspicion it cannot be alleged that the transaction was fishy one.
10. From the record, it is evident that Banwari Lal died on 28.4.2022. The following transactions were completed on 26.4.2022:
(i) Bank loan was cleared and the property was released from mortgage.
(ii) A separate bank account was opened in the name of Banwari Lal in a different bank.
(iii) The sale deed under challenge in civil suit was executed and one of the petitioner is beneficiary of the sale deed and another is witness on the sale deed.
(iv) The consideration money was transferred to the new bank account of the Banwari Lal only after his death.
11. On the basis of aforesaid, it cannot be completely ruled out that the exercise had happened in ugly haste, therefore, in the FIR, the police would investigate as to who had cleared the loan amount on the property under transfer and from where the loan amount was paid. Who was the identifier of late Banwari Lal in the new Bank Account and who withdrew the part of money deposited after death of Banwari Lal in his bank account. It has been informed that co-accused Manish has already been arrested in the case. A strong suspicion of commission of cognizable offence is sufficient to allow investigation of the case. The principle "suspicion cannot take the place of proof" would be considered at the stage of trial, therefore, I do not find any merit in the prayer of petitioners Ramesh and Rajesh (in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 11:53:17 PM) (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022] 5359/2022) for quashing of the same FIR. Allegation against them is quite distinguishable to that of Pawan Kumar, who is not a witness on the sale deed under challenge nor there is any allegation against Pawan in the FIR or in the plaint of the civil suit.
12. In the result, SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 5359/2022 stands dismissed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/8-9 (Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 11:53:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)