Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Manju Chordiya And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 27 February, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ No. 157/2015
1. Smt Manju Chordiya W/o Shri Balveer Kumar Chordiya
2. Balveer Kumar Chordiya S/o Shri Birdhi Chand Chordiya
3. Aditya Chordiya S/o Shri Balveer Kumar Chordiya,
All Resident of Plt No.B-28, New Light Colony, Tonk Road,
Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (South)
3. Lakhveer Singh S/o Shri Sardar Jeet Singh, b/c Punjabi, r/o C-136, Gokul Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur at present E-88, Tagor Nagar, Behind Hotel Kiran Palace, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7150/2018 Braj Gopal Sharma S/o Shri Kalyan Prasad Sharma B/c Brahman, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Y-88, Mahaveer Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus 1 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2 Shri Ramavtar Soni, Assistant Commissioner Of Police, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur West, Jaipur.
3 Lakhveer Singh S/o Shri Sardar Jeet Singh B/c Punjabi, R/o C-6/101, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM)
(2 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.K.Mathur, Sr.Adv. with Mr.
Prahlad Sharma in CRLW
No.157/2015
Mr.Rahul Tiwari in CRLMP
No.7150/2018
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa,
Mr.Sarfaraz Hyder Khan
For State Mr.Sudesh Saini,PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
27/02/2019
1. Petitioners-Smt.Manju Chordiya, Balveer Kumar Chordiya and Aditya Chordiya have preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.157/2015 seeking quashing of FIR No.95/2015 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (South).
2. Petitioner-Braj Gopal Sharma has preferred Criminal Misc.Petition No.7150/2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the same FIR bearing No.95/2015.
3. As the prayer in the Writ Petition and Criminal Misc.Petition is same, both the petitions i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No.157/2015 and Cr.Misc.Petition No.7150/2018 are being decided by this common order.
4. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that complaint was lodged by Lakhveer Singh alleging therein that the complainant was into jewellery business. He purchased Plot Nos.A-80, A-81, A- 82AB, 90, 91 and 92 and got possession of the same. After purchasing the plots, a common boundry wall was constructed and constructions were raised on the plots and complainant started residing therein. It is also mentioned in the complaint that Smt.Manju Chordiya was like a sister of the complainant. In the year 1998 a theft took place in the premises of the complainant as (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM) (3 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015] a result of which complainant became indebted to many persons. Complainant took loan from petitioner-Balveer Kumar Chordiya. Manju Chordiya took original property papers and signatures on blank stamp papers for letting out the property of the complainant. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the family members of the complainant resided in the premises till December 1998, thereafter the premises was let out to Ranbaxy Ltd. Complainant was under the impression that the blank papers on which signatures were obtained were used for executing the rent- deed. In 2013 Ranbaxy Ltd. vacated the premises. In 2014 petitioners told the complainant that the complainant was not having any right over the property. On enquiry from Jaipur Development Authority, it was revealed that petitioners had got the property transferred in their name. When petitioners started raising construction, complainant's son filed civil suit in December 2014 with regard to Plot No.91 and his son Ranjeet Singh filed civil suit in relation to Plot No.81. It is mentioned in the complaint that a forged agreement to sale has been prepared by the petitioners. Complaint was sent to the Police Station under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and FIR No.95/2015 was registered by the police.
5. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the plots were purchased by the petitioners and after the purchase of plots, pattas were got issued from Jaipur Development Authority. Petitioners after purchase of property had let out the property to Ranbaxy Ltd. which continued as tenant for a period of about 15 years and petitioners were receiving rent from Ranbaxy Ltd. After the premises was vacated by Ranbaxy Ltd. Petitioners sought permission for consideration of plots and for raising residential apartment. Requisite fees to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- was (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM) (4 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015] deposited and permission for constructing residential apartment was given by Jaipur Development Authority. Petitioners started constructing flats on the said plots and present complaint was lodged to obstruct the petitioners from raising construction.
6. It is also contended that when sons of the complainant could not get any interim order in their favour from the Civil Courts, complainant filed this frivolous complaint.
7. It is also contended that there is inordinate delay of 17 years in lodging of the complaint. There is no justification for permitting the police to investigate in the FIR when there is no dispute and dispute, if any, is of civil nature. It is also contended that Bankers cheques were given for purchasing the plots. The Jaipur Development Authority has issued registered Patta in favour of petitioners in the year 2001. Petitioners have deposited around Rs.80 lacs with the Jaipur Development Authority for permission to raise residential apartments and as many as 55 flats have been constructed and sold by the petitioners.
8. It is also contended that the lodging of complaint is an abuse of process of Court and when complainant could not get interim relief from the Civil Courts and the High Court, just to put pressure upon the petitioners false complaint has been lodged. It is contended that the sale transaction was made in the year 1996 but the entire sale consideration was paid in 1998 through Bankers cheques, electricity connection was installed in the name of petitioners in 1999. Petitioners are making payment of Urban Development Tax since the lease-deed was issued in favour of the petitioners. Plan was also approved in October 2013. There is inordinate delay in lodging of FIR and Civil Court is ceased with the matter.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM)
(5 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015]
9. It is also contended that the matter is of civil nature, remedy if any, available to the complainant is for cancellation of Patta and the permission given by the Jaipur Development Authority.
10. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein the Apex Court has held that for invoking its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings on the basis of defence material, High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced or relied on by accused (a) leads to the conclusion that his/her defence is based on sound, reasonable and indisputable facts; (b) rules out and displaces assertions contained in charges levelled against accused without necessity of recording any evidence; (c) should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being of sterling and impeccable quality i.e. a reasonable man should be persuaded to dismiss and condemn actual basis of accusations as false; and (d) whether continuation of proceedings would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice.
11. Reliance has also been placed on Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2011 SC 1905) wherein the Apex Court has held that Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers when abuse of process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court.
12. Reliance is also placed on B.Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee & Anr. (AIR 2008 SC 210) wherein the Apex Court held that though liability of a person can be both civil and criminal at the same time, inconsistent stand taken by complainant assumes significance and complaint may be quashed.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM)
(6 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015]
13. Reliance is placed on Mohan Lal Singhal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1408 wherein there was a property dispute regarding purchase of a plot, a civil suit was also filed regarding the same dispute. Complainant having filed in civil suit, with a view to harass and humiliate petitioners, filed criminal complaint. The Court observed that the dispute appears to be of civil nature and consequently quashed the proceedings.
14. With regard to delay in lodging of FIR, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Kishan Singh (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 775 wherein the Apex Court quashed the FIR as there was inordinate delay in filing of FIR. The Court observed that when there is a delay in lodging of FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the absence of such explanation the delay may be fatal. In such cases the Court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with malafide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal Court. The Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the Court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of process of law.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM)
(7 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015]
15. Reliance is also placed on Suneet Gupta vs. Anil
Triloknath Sharma & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 670 where the dispute was considered as of a civil nature, FIR was lodged after two years. The Court held that the criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law, hence, the FIR was quashed.
16. Reliance is also placed on Anand Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 (3) RCC 1652 where there was an inordinate delay of 13 years. The Court has quashed the FIR.
17. Reliance is also placed on State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) wherein the Apex Court has set out the categories of cases in which the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised.
18. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition as well as the Criminal Misc.Petition.
19. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that the complainant took loan from the petitioners and blank papers were got signed from him on the pretext that the property would be leased-out and the rent would be adjusted against the interest money advanced to him. It is also contended that there is no bar in continuing the proceedings in FIR even when a civil matter is pending as civil and criminal proceedings can continue together. It is also contended that Patta has been issued by the society in the name of petitioners even prior to the date of agreement to sale which goes to show that documents have been forged by the petitioners. It is also contended that even if there is a suspicion, FIR cannot be quashed and defence cannot be seen at this stage.
20. Counsel for the respondent has further contended that the agreement to sale on stamp of Rs.100/- is of December 1998 whereas the Society issued patta in names of petitioners in (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM) (8 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015] January 1996, the agreement to sale and advance payment is said to have taken place on 25.12.1995 and only Rs.1100/- was given as advance money for each plot.
21. Learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the Writ Petition as well as Criminal Misc.Petition.
22. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Pratibha vs. Rameshwari Devi & Ors. JT 2007 (11) 122 wherein the Apex Court held that while exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the FIR or rely upon extraneous consideration. For the purpose of finding out the commission of a cognizable offence the High Court is only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR.
23. Reliance is also placed on M.L.Bhatt vs. M.K.Pandita & Ors. JT 2002 (3) SC 89 wherein the Apex Court held that the High Court is entitled to only examine the FIR and by no means the Court would be justified in quashing FIR by appreciating and shifting the materials collected during the investigation.
24. Reliance is also placed on Kishan Singh (D) through L.Rs. vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors. JT 2010 (9) SC 69 wherein the Apex Court held that the finding of facts recorded by the Civil Court does not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vise-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases, in civil cases, it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
25. I have considered the contentions.
26. As per the complaint filed by the complainant-Lakhveer Singh, complainant had received Bankers Cheque given the original documents to the petitioners and had also given the (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM) (9 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015] signed papers to the petitioners way back in the year 1998. It is also the case of the complainant that he resided in the property till December 1998. The present FIR has been lodged after a lapse of almost 17 years with the allegation that original documents and signatures on blank papers were taken from the complainant on the pretext of letting out the property. Prior to filing of the present FIR, complainant's son Ranjeet Singh filed a civil suit for injunction and his application for injunction was rejected. A Civil Misc. Appeal was preferred before the High Court, which was also rejected on 7.12.2016. Another suit was preferred by Jasmeet Singh, other son of complainant-Lakhveer Singh, and temporary injunction application was dismissed by the Court. When no relief was granted by Civil Court complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and FIR was registered on 7.2.2015. It is revealed from the record that electricity connection has been issued in the name of the petitioners and telephone connection is also installed in the name of petitioners. Petitioners have been paying Urban Development Tax to the Jaipur Development Authority and Jaipur Development Authority has also issued allotment letters and Pattas in the name of petitioners and the same were registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Jaipur-III in the month of July 2001. The petitioners thereafter applied for construction of residential apartments on the plots in question and deposited a sum of Rs.75.51 lacs with the Jaipur Development Authority in October 2013. Permission for construction of residential apartments was given by the Jaipur Development Authority on 13.5.2014 and petitioners have constructed around 55 flats. Admittedly, the complainant has (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM) (10 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015] given original documents pertaining to the plots in question to the petitioners and they let out the property to Ranbaxy Ltd. and received rent for a period of 15 years. It is also evident that sons of complainant have filed civil suit with regard to the disputed plots and have not succeeded in obtaining any stay from the Court. The sale consideration has been paid through Banker cheques, which now the complainant contends that the amount by cheques was given as loan to the complainant, this plea cannot be accepted as the complainant as per the complaint vacated the premises in 1998 and thereafter petitioners received rent of the premises. Patta for the premises was issued to the petitioners which was registered and petitioners have obtained permission to construct residential apartments on the disputed plots in question and have constructed 55 flats of which many flats have been sold. The complainant was sleeping over his rights for a period of more than 15 years. The delay in lodging of FIR is fatal to the prosecution launched by the complainant. The explanation given for delay by the complainant cannot be considered to be plausible.
27. The Apex Court in Kishan Singh (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors.(supra) held that a plausible explanation for delay in lodging complaint should be there. Apex Court in Suneet Gupta vs. Anil Triloknath Sharma & Ors. (supra) considered the delay of two years as inordinate delay when the dispute was of a civil nature. Rajasthan High Court in Anand Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 (3) RCC 1652 considered the delay of 13 years as inordinate and FIR was quashed.
28. The delay in this case is seventeen years which is also inordinate delay, coupled with the delay, there are two civil suits filed by the sons of the complainant wherein no interim injunction (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM) (11 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015] was granted in favour of the complainant. In addition to the delay, petitioners have been exercising their sole rights over the property by receiving rent for 15 years. They got the registered Pattas issued by the Jaipur Development Authority way back in the year 2001. The Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (supra) held that the Courts can quash the proceedings on the basis of defence material, if satisfied that the proceedings would result in abuse of process of court and would not serve the ends of justice. Apex Court in Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) held that the inherent powers should be invoked when continuing of proceeding would result in abuse of process of Court. Rajasthan High Court in Mohan Lal Singhal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) held that where there is dispute regarding property and the dispute appears to be of a civil nature, proceedings should not be continued in the criminal side.
29. Reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that continuing the criminal proceedings which have been initiated after an inordinate delay of seventeen years also coupled with the facts that the petitioners have received rent for 15 years and have raised residential apartment after depositing about 75 lakh rupees and after obtaining permission from Jaipur Development Authority. Continuing the proceedings on criminal side would result in abuse of process of Court and injustice to the petitioners.
30. The only contention of counsel for the respondent is that the Pattas were issued in name of the petitioners even prior to the execution of the agreement to sale. I do not find any basis in the said contention as Pattas were issued by the Society concerned after submission of the original documents and furnishing receipt (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM) (12 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015] of Rs.1100/- per plot. Thereafter on the basis of agreements to sale wherein details of the Bankers cheques were mentioned, Pattas were issued by the Jaipur Development Authority way back in the year 2001. After the tenant i.e. Ranbaxy Ltd. vacated the premises petitioners applied for construction of residential apartments in the plot and deposited a sum of more than Rs.75 lacs, and permission for raising residential apartment was granted. Hence, the plea that the Pattas were issued prior to the agreement to sale cannot be accepted.
31. The continuation of proceedings in a case instituted after a lapse of more than 17 years tantamounts to abuse of process of Court. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition as well as Criminal Misc.Petition deserve to be allowed and proceedings pending before the Court below deserve to be quashed.
32. Consequently, the Criminal Writ Petition No.157/2015 filed by Smt. Manju Chordiya and two others and the Criminal Misc.Petition No.7150/2018 filed by Braj Gopal Sharma are allowed and FIR No.95/2015 and all proceedings drawn thereon are quashed. Stay applications and all pending applicationsstand disposed.
33. Copy of this order be placed in the connected file.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J teekam/ Reserved orders (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)