Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar Lodha And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:49380]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 122/2018
1. Ashok Kumar Lodha S/o Shri Sampat Lal Ji, Aged About
56 Years, By Caste Lodha (Jain), R/o Dhoenda, Police
Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand. (Rajasthan).
2. Smt Vimla Devi W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Lodha, Aged
About 53 Years, By Caste Lodha, R/o Dhoenda, Police
Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through the Public Prosecutor.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, District Rajsamand,
Rajasthan.
3. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwati Lal, Aged About 50 Years,
By Caste Lodha Jain, R/o Dhoenda, Police Station
Kankroli, District Rajsamand. (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. S.P. Sharma
For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, AGA
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Menaria
Present in person : Mr. Chhoga Lal, ASI,
PS Kankroli, District Rajsamand
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 18/11/2024
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.33/2017 dated 06.02.2017 registered at Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR impugned got lodged at the instance of respondent No.3 alleging inter alia that (Downloaded on 13/12/2024 at 09:42:17 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:49380] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-122/2018] he and the petitioners entered into an agreement to sale of a plot owned by the petitioner No.2 and an upfront amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the petitioners on the day of execution of agreement to sale dated 01.09.2015. It is alleged that afterwards some more amounts were also given in cash, through cheque and via bank transactions including RTGS. It is further alleged in the FIR that the entire sale consideration had been paid to the petitioners and only the sale-deed remained to be executed. The respondent No.3 has alleged that on 08.01.2017, when he went to inspect the plot in question, it came to his information that the said plot was not in the ownership of the petitioners; rather, the proprietary rights of the same had been given by the Municipal Corporation, Rajsamand to someone else, thus, it is alleged that he has been duped by the petitioners.
3. Learned AGA has submitted a factual report dated 04.02.2022, as per which, the investigation has been carried out and the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC have been found to be proved against the petitioners.
4. As a matter of fact, in an earlier round of investigation, no offence was found to be proved against the petitioners; rather, it was concluded that the allegations were false and accordingly a Negative Final Report No.8/17 dated 28.02.2017 was chalked out.
5. The respondent No.3, perhaps mounted pressure and accordingly the matter was put to re-investigation and the result of which is shown to be reversed to the earlier finding. (Downloaded on 13/12/2024 at 09:42:17 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:49380] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-122/2018]
6. As on date, there are two opinions from two different Investigating Officers : one is faverable to the petitioners and whereas other claims commission of offence by the petitioners.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that one Kushal Kumawat purchased a piece of land in auction from Gram Panchayat and accordingly he was granted a patta by the former Gram Panchayat of Dhoenda in the year 1974. Subsequently, on 16.04.2013, he sold out half portion of that plot measuring 5000 sq.ft. to the petitioner No.2 through negotiations done by petitioner No.1 being her husband for a sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-; whereas remaining half portion of the said plot was also sold out to another person viz. Smt. Nandu. The registered sale-deeds were executed in respect of the said transfer of property on 16.04.2013 and accordingly possession of the plots were taken by the respective parties. The said land is now falling within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Rajsamand.
9. Based on their assumption of proprietary rights, the petitioners decided to sale entire half plot to the respondent No.3 for a consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. However, it is the claim of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 made a request to them to execute a sale-agreement showing a sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- for his personal reasons, as he wanted to arrange some finance for the purchase of the property. Accordingly, the sale-agreement was executed on 01.09.2015 duly attested by public notary.
(Downloaded on 13/12/2024 at 09:42:17 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:49380] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-122/2018]
10. The registered sale-deed got executed on 22.09.2015 and possession of the plot was also handed over to the respondent No.3. It seems that there is a bonafide dispute between the parties and both have their respective claims. A Civil Suit No.17/2021 is also pending in the court of District Judge, Rajsamand filed by complainant - Sunil Kumar, who is the complainant/respondent No.3 herein, and the defendants of the said civil suit are the petitioners herein.
11. A perusal of the pleadings made by the respondent No.3 in the above civil suit making it abundantly clear that the respondent No.3 entered into an agreement with the petitioners with regard to the plot in question. The respondent No.3 also admitted in Para No.4 of his plaint regarding execution of a sale-deed. It seems that the possession of the vacant plot has also been handed over to him. In the said civil suit, the complainant/respondent No.3 has sought relief for declaring him the owner of the said plot and the matter is pending adjudication before the District Judge, Rajsamand.
12. From the facts narrated above, it is abundantly clear that there seems a bonafide dispute in between the parties, each have their respective claims and the civil suit is pending in which the issues relatable to the FIR impugned shall be dealt with.
13. The Civil Court shall adjudicate the issues based on the evidence as would be adduced by the parties during the course of the suit and of course, the standard of proof required therein would be the preponderance of probability.
(Downloaded on 13/12/2024 at 09:42:17 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:49380] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-122/2018]
14. As on date, it does not seem that right from the very inception, the petitioners had an intent to swindle the complainant/respondent No.3; rather, it was a civil transaction entered in between them, which later on, became sour owing to some civil dispute.
15. In this view of the matter and the legal preposition enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1695/2009) : 2010 AIR SCW 405 and Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259, there would be no justification to allow continuation of the investigation in the FIR under challenge and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed.
16. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.33/2017 dated 06.02.2017 registered at Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand and all the consequential proceedings thereof are quashed and set aside.
17. Stay petition stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J Abhishek Kumar S.No.65 (Downloaded on 13/12/2024 at 09:42:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)