Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Lekhraj Saini S/O Shri Narayanlal Saini vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 9 August, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4635/2018
1. Lekhraj Saini S/o Shri Narayanlal Saini, R/o 1041,
Sikandra Ka Bas, Ward No.23, Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa,
District Dausa, Raj.
2. Narendra Kumar Saini S/o Shri Chhagalal Saini, R/o
Village Panditpura Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Raj.
3. Hukam Chand Saini S/o Shri Duli Chand Saini, R/o Bada
Wala Bas, Panditpura, District Dausa, Raj.
4. Chhagan Lal Saini S/o Shri Narayan Lal, R/o Ward No.22,
Sikandra Ka Bas, Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa,
Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Jaipur.
2. Bhagwan Sahai Agarwal S/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam
Agarwal B/c Mahajan, R/o 63, Mansinghpura Tonk Road,
Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Kumar Upman
For Complainant : Mr.Madhav Mitra
For State : Mr.F.R.Meena,PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
Date of Order :::: 09/08/2019
1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition seeking quashing of FIR No.407/2018 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that FIR No.407/2018 was lodged at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 11:32:27 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4635/2018] (East) wherein it was alleged by the complainant-respondent that Petitioner No.1 approached the complainant to sell his agricultural land and the house constructed thereon. The sale consideration was Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Thirteen cheques were given to the petitioner and the original registry was handed over to the complainant. It is also mentioned that the petitioner delayed the execution of the registry and sought time on one ground or the other. As petitioner did not execute the sale-deed, complainant became doubtful and on inquiry it was revealed that the property was mortgaged with the Bank and that petitioner prior to the agreement had surrendered the land to the Municipal Council, Bandikui, District Dausa and had obtained patta of the disputed land.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the dispute, if any, is of civil nature, no cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. Petitioner was willing to refund the amount and has deposited Rs.31,25,000/- with the Registrar (Judicial) of this High Court.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rambabu Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.5035/2016 decided by Rajasthan High Court on 08.01.2018), M.Suresh Vs. State of A.P.& Anr.(2016 SCC Online SC, 794), Pradip Mundra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 855), Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168), Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.2327/2014) decided by Apex Court on 30.10.2014), G.Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Ors. (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 11:32:27 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-4635/2018] ( Appeal (Criminal) 91/2000 decided by the Apex Court on 28.1.2000.
5. Counsel for the complainant-respondent has vehemently opposed the Criminal Misc. Petition. It is contended by counsel for the complainant that FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Petitioner has obtained money for a property which was mortgaged with the Bank. The entire sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/- has been paid by cheque. Petitioner has also concealed the fact of having surrendered the property to the Municipal Council and having obtained patta on the said property. The property was sold to the complainant as an agricultural land.
6. It is also contended that the entire transaction took place at the office of the complainant-respondent which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.
7. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on "Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2018(3) SCC Page 106" wherein the Apex Court has held that where F.I.R. discloses prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, High Court cannot act like an investigating agency. At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. Apex Court observed that once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.
8. I have considered the contentions.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 11:32:27 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-4635/2018]
9. FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence. The dispute cannot be considered to be of civil nature as on the date when the agreement took place the property was mortgaged with the Bank which fact was concealed by Petitioner No.1. At the time of execution of the agreement he took entire sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/- from the complainant. The fact of petitioner No.1 surrendering the land with the Municipal Council under Section 90-B and obtaining patta for the said land was also concealed by petitioner No.1.
10. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner on facts have no applicability.
11. F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence, no ground is made out for invoking the inherent powers, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in "Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2018(3) SCC Page 106" (supra) the Criminal Misc. Petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. is dismissed.
12. Stay application stands disposed.
13. However, the Registrar (Judicial) of this High Court is directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J teekam/reserved order (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 11:32:27 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)