Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2022
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 06/01/2022
Order Delivered on : 25/02/2022
WPCR No. 750 of 2021
Mukesh Agrawal son of Shri Suresh Agrawal, aged about 47
years, Partner - Vindhya Vasini Developers, Raipur, resident
of C-33, Ashoka Mellinium, New Rajendra Nagar, Ring Road
No.1, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Ministry of
Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.).
2. The State House Officer, Police Station - Mowa, Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.).
3. Ayesha Siddiqui, daugher of Md. Idris, aged around 47 years,
residing at E.A.C. Colony, Behind Collectorate, Thana - Civil
Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hari Agrawal and Rahul Tamaskar, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Dy.
A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey CAV ORDER
1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2021, for grant of interim relief.
2. The Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing impugned FIR No.23/2019 (Annexure P/1) registered by Police Station Pandri, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC and all consequent 2 proceeding emanating therefrom stating that without there being any foundation for the registration of the offence.
3. Complainant Ayesha Siddiqui moved a written complaint with the averments that her father Md. Idris, by way of family partition, had obtained the aforesaid property and at present the market value of the said property is around 50 Crores. On 10.03.2017, the land mafia namely Aftab Siddique in connivance with Mukesh Agrawal, the Petitioner herein, transferred the said land for Rs.30 Crores tampering with the revenue documents. It has been further alleged that Aftab Siddique and Mukesh Agrawal, Petitioner herein transferred the said land taking advantage of old age and less memory of her father. The amount of sale consideration deposited in her father's account has been misappropriated by Aftab Siddique and his aid namely Arif Ahmad and Abdul Gani. Further allegation is that his father was residing alone as such, there was no requirement and need of her father to sell the property and get the said huge amount and to further invest the same, thereby committed cheating, fraud and misappropriation by the Petitioner. There is apprehension that said Aftab Siddique, Abdul Gani and Arif Ahmad can kidnap and kill her father as they have a Will dated 24.11.2017 of her father in their favour, hence a protection is necesasry of her father from the accused persons.
4. Based on this written complaint, the impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) has been lodged against the Petitioner and other persons.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was a Director of a Company who had constructed residential project under the name of Palm Bellazio at Mowa Raipur. The Petitioner was also partner of the partnership firm styled as Vindhya Vasini Developer, which is Developer, promoter and Partnership Firm. In the year 2016, one Md. Idris and Aftab Siddiqui met with the Petitioner in connection with sell of land bearing Khasra No.886/4, 910/1 total area 1.057 hectare situated at Mowa, Raipur. The Petitioner, after satisfying with the 3 requisite documents produced before him by Md. Idris and Aftab Siddiqui and after negotiations, the sale consideration of aforesaid two khasra number was finalized for consideration of Rs.3,85,50,500/-. After finalization of deal, Md. Idris told the Petitioner that Aftab Siddique will execute the transfer deed in his favour as he (Aftab Siddique) is his (Md. Idris's) attorney holder, but the same was refused by the Petitioner stating that being a builder/developer, the sale deed shall be executed only with the land owner and sale consideration would be paid by him to the land owner only by way of account payee cheque to have a clear title over the property and to avoid any future legal dispute. Thereafter, upon their agreement to the said terms, on 11.08.2016, a sale deed (Batch-1) was executed in favour of the Petitioner by the land owner namely Md. Idris in respect of Kh. No.886/4 and 910/1 area 1.057 hectare (Annexure P/3) and sale consideration of Rs.3,85,80,500/- was paid to land owner Md. Idris through cheques. After execution of the aforesaid sale deed dated 11.08.2016, on 19.10.2016 one Bushra Sharif made a complaint before the Registrar with the averments that the sale deed was undervalued as per the government guideline, which was decided vide order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure P/5) by the Collector of Stamp at Raipur holding that the valuation of the sale deed was correct and according to the government guideline rate. Thereafter, on 29.11.2016, a complaint was made by Bushra Shareef before the Police authorities alleging therein that she is also co-owner of the property in question and Md. Idris had fraudulently sold the said property to the Petitioner. That apart, one complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was also filed by Bushra Shareef for registration of FIR, however, vide order dated 10.07.2017 the proceedings of the said complaint have been withdrawn by the Complainant Buishra Shareef. Thereafter, Md. Idris and Aftab once again came to the Petitioner with offer to sell some more land, to which the petitioner denied saying that there are many members in their family as also dispute among themselves. But on assurance by Md. Idris that he will get the matter solved and it was agreed to confirm the sale deed dated 11.08.2016 by way of 4 amendment after getting the signature of all family members. The Petitioner relying upon the assurance given by Md. Idris and Aftab agreed to purchase the land specified in Batch-2 and Batch-3 and sale consideration were decided to be Rs.7,42,04,500/- and Rs.2,48,56,500/- respectively, and on 10.03.2017, two sale deeds (Annexure P/7 and P/8) were executed accordingly. As it was agreed by Md. Idris, an amended deed was executed on 15.03.2017 to confirm sale deed dated 11.08.2016 arraying all the family members as consenter. After execution of amended deed, the Petitioner applied for mutation of the firm in revenue record but surprisingly an objection with regard to Kh. No.886/4 which was part of sale deed dated 11.08.2016 (Batch-1) was raised by Saraswati Bai before the revenue authority to be the owner of property bearing Kh. No.886/4. Upon inquiry from Md. Idris, he informed that the land bearing khasra No.886/4 was belonged to his father Mohammad Yakub, who had sold the said land to Rehmat Baksh and thereafter Rehmat Baksh had sold the said land to Smt. Saraswati Bai. The Petitioner showed displeasure over the issue and assurance was given by Md. Idris to rectify his mistake and refund the amount which he had received in respect of property bearing Khasra No.886/4. Thereafter, an amendment deed dated 28.02.2018 to the previous sale deed dated 11.08.2016 deleting the Khasra No.886/4 and agreement to refund the sale consideration amount on pro-rata basis amounting to Rs.1,83,23,000/- were also executed. Further case is that on 09.01.2019, after a lapse of more than two years and four months from the date of execution of first sale deed dated 11.08.2016, Complainant filed a complaint in question wherein in addition to allegations made against other accused person.
6. After one month of filing the complaint, on 09.02.2019 the Petitioner received a legal notice from one Ku. Shazaadi and Kumari Noor Begum stating that they and their family members have sold the properties to the Petitioner vide registered document dated 30.03.2017 (part of Batch -2 and Batch -3) but yet to receive part of consideration of Rs.1 5 Crore from the Petitioner, which was duly answered by the Petitioner stating that he had made all the payment of consideration. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner came to know about civil recovery suit of Rs.7,26,19,715/- filed by Md. Idris against Aftab Siddique. During pending of the recovery suit, Md. Idris with influence of complainant herein has filed a civil suit for declaration of title in respect of the subject property, which is pending consideration before the Civil Court at Raipur.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegation made in impugned FIR, prima-facie, do not make out any case so as to attract aforesaid offence against the Petitioner as the same are absurd and inherently improbable. According to the allegation of Complainant - Ayesha Siddiqui, daughter of Md. Idris, the dispute pertains to Khasra Nos. 255, 260, 261, 262/2 situated at village Mowa, behind Mowa Police Station, Dubey Colony and Khasra Nos. 859, 811, 886/5, 887, 888, 889, 890, 892, 894, 886/4, 910/1, 891, 895 and 886/6 situated between BSNL Palm Bellazio & Aishwarya Wind Mill, village Mowa, Raipur. He further submits that allegations have been maliciously levelled with ulterior motive to create cloud over title of the properties purchased by the Petitioner way back in the year 2016 and thereby extort money from the Petitioner in view of the sky-rocketed escalation of prices of aforesaid property. The Petitioner has entered into a purely commercial real estate transaction with Md. Idris and has followed all the obligations of principle buyers beware before entering into said transaction and it was the major stipulation of the transaction that the recorded owner would execute the sale deed and consideration amount must directly go into his bank account. The allegation against the Petitioner is baseless as it is evidence from the bank statement that amount was credited to the bank account of the Petitioner from the account of Md. Idris with respect to Khasra No.886/4 (For deletion of the said Khasra from the sale deed executed on 11.08.2016). Learned counsel also submits that even if the entire case is taken on its face value, the present dispute is of civil in nature for which Md. Idris has approached the 6 competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. The impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) does not disclose commission of offence of cheating and forgery as envisaged in the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It has been also submitted that Md. Idris refunded the money to the Petitioner in respect of the land which was not belonged to his as such, allegation against the Petitioner are false and atrocious. Therefore, considering the overall aspects of the matter, the Petitioner is entitled for order of stay in respect of impugned FIR (Annexure P/1). In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha V. State of Karnatakan and Others 1, Randheer Singh V. State of U.P. and Others2 and G. Sagar Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P. and Ors.3.
8. On the other hand, Learned State counsel opposing application for stay (I.A.No.01/2012) submits that the name of the Petitioner finds place in impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) and the matter was investigated into but the Petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court to defend himself. The charge-sheet has been filed against the other accused persons namely Aftab Siddiqui, Arif Ahmed Qureshi and Abdul Gani by the Police Station Mowa, District Raipur and the investigation against the Petitioner could not be progressed due to his non co-operation with the investigating team. Learned State counsel further submits that the Petitioner has no locus to file the instant petition as he is not gonig to affect by the trial or the judgment of the trial Court. That apart, his name does not find place in the charge sheet and the there is no good ground for entertaining or interfering with the charge sheet or impugned FIR. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for any interim relief in the case.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing the prayer of interim relief submits that the Petitioner has been absconding and hiding from the investigation for last two years and 11 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 942 3 (2000) 2 SCC 636 7 months and the extra ordinary jurisdiction is not for those who are absconding from the law. There is direct allegation against the present Petitioner regarding his involvement in the entire series of events by all the co-accused together which took place while committing offene of cheating and forgery in connivance with each other. Learned counsel further submits that the trial of the case has started and the other co-accused persons are languishing in jail as their bail applications have been rejected by all the Courts and even the Hon'ble Apex Court has remitted back one of the co- accused to again approach the Court below after examination of two main witnesses. The Petitioner along with other co- accused persons have cheated the victim/complainant to the tune of crores of rupees which has been observed in the concluding paragraph of the bail rejection orders and till date no money has been received by the victim out of the amount cheated from him and the Petitioner is roaming Scott-free for last three years without facing trial. Learned counsel also submits that present is a pure case of criminal in nature and not a civil dispute. The Petitioner is aware about his role in the present case as he was one of the conspirator to cheat the father of respondent No.3 along with other co-accused persons, therefore, he is not appearing before the investigating agency and has now come before this Court praying for interim relief as also terming the present case to be of civil in nature. The Petitioner is not entitled for any interim relief.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.
11. In the impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) name of Petitioner and other three persons namely Aftab Siddique, Arif Ahmed Qureshi and Abdul Gani find place. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against three accused persons qua Aftab Siddique, Arif Ahmed Qureshi and Abdul Gani. In last para of the charge-sheet, it has been written as under:-
"izdj.k dk ,d vkjksih foa/;okf'kuh MsoyilZ ds Hkkxhnkj eqds'k vxzoky ?kVuk ds i'pkr ls yxkrkj ywds fNis jgus 8 ls iz;kl ds ckotwn Hkh vHkh rd fxj¶rkj ugh gqvk gSA izdj.k esa iwoZ ls fxj¶rkj vkjksih vkQrkc fln~ndh] vkfjQ vgen dqjS'kh rFkk vCnqy xuh dsUnzh; dkjkxkj jk;iqj esa fu:) gS tks eku~uh; mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj esa dbZ ckj tekur ;kfpdk nk;j fd;s gSa fdUrq vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, eku~uh; mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj } kjk gj ckj tekur ;kfpdk fujLr dj nh xbZ gSA pwafd izdj.k esa fnukad 12-04-2019 dks is'k fd;s x;s vfHk;ksx i= dk fopkj.k eku~uh; U;k;ky; esa izkjaHk gks x;k gS rFkk vfHk;ksx i= is'k djus ds i'pkr~ vkjksfi;ksa ds fo:) mDr egRoiw.kZ lk{; miyC/k gks x;k gS ftls eku~uh; U;k;ky; ds lKkurk esa ykuk vfuok;Z gSA vr% izdj.k esa /kkjk 173(8) tk-QkS- ds varxZr foospuk tkjh j[krs gq, iwjd vfHk;ksx i= dzekad 85&,@19 rS;kj fd;k x;k tks vfxze dk;Zokgh ckcr~ eku~uh; U;k;ky; izLrqr gSA"
12. The Petitioner has filed copies of all the sale deeds executed between the parties, which shows their agreement to sell and purchased the property in question on consideration of Rs.3,85,80,50/- (Annexure P/3), Rs.7,42,04,500/- (Annexure P/7) and Rs.2,48,56,500/- (Annexure P/8) and it is evident from bank statement of the Petitioner (Annexure P/9) that he has made huge payment to the parties. An Amendment Deed (Annexrue P/10) to sale deed dated 11.08.2016 was also registered between the parties, wherein it has been amended as under :-
";g fd] okLro esa mDr fodz; foys[k fnukafdr 11-08- 2016 esa of.kZr Hkwfe ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj fodzsrk ,oa fuEu of.kZr lgefrnkrkx.k dh la;qDr Hkwfe gS ijUrq jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa mDr Hkwfe dsoy fodzsrk ds uke ij ,dek= Lokeh ds #i esa ntZ gSA vr% mDr fodz; foys[k esa fuEu of.kZr lgefrnkrkx.k dh lgefr gksuk vko';d Fkk tks fd fodz; foys[k esa vafdr gksuk NwV x;k gS vr% bl la'kks/ku foys[k ds ek/;e ls lgefrnkrkx.k ds #i esa dzsrk ds i'pkr lgefrnkrkx.k dk uke lekfgr fd;k tkrk gS %&"
13. The aforesaid correction/amendment deed was executed by as many as eight persons (lgefrnkrk). The Petitioner has also filed document of revenue case No.216-A/6 year 2016-17. One objector namely Dheeraj Lal filed an objection before the Tahsildar and sale deed (Annexure P/13) which was executed between Rahmat Baksh and Smt. Saraswati Bai and it is the case of the Petitioner that on this objection an amendment deed (Ex.P/14) executed between the parties and according to the said amendment deed, Khasra 9 No.886/04 rakba 0.502 which was belonged to the objector, was deleted from sale deed dated 11.08.2016. An agreement deed was also executed between the parties regarding to this. Rs.1,83,23,000/- was refunded to the Petitioner for deleting the above khasra number.
14. As regards cheating, it is in this background that one has to take into account the ingredient of Section 415 IPC which defines cheating to mean:-
"Section 415. Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Sagar (supra), held in para 8 and 11, which read thus:-
"8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a mater, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
11. In Chandrapal Singh V. Maharaj Singh (1982) 1 SCC 466 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 249 :
AIR 1982 SC 1238, the judgment started as under : (SCC p. 467, para 1) " A frustrated landlord after having met his Waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts when stated are to telling that the further discussion may appear to be 10 superfluous."
This Court Said : (SCC p. 474, para 14) "We see some force in the submission but it is equally true that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court. Complainant herein is an advocate. He lost in both courts in the rent control proceedings and has now rushed to the criminal court. This itself speaks volumes. Add to this the fact that another suit between the parties was pending from 1975. The conclusion is inescapable that invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court in this background is an abuse of the process of law and the High Court rather glossed over this important fact while declining to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
16. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Randheer (supra) observed in para 33, which reads thus:-
"33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the Appellant is concerned. There is no whisper of how and in what manner, this Appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge sheet, the relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above.
17. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mitesh (supra), held in para 41 and 42 as under:-
" 41. Having considered the relevant arguments 11 of the parties and decisions of this court we are of the considered view that existence of dishonest or fraudulent intention has not been made out against the Appellants. Though the instant dispute certainly involves determination of issues which are of civil nature, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 has even instituted multiple civil suits, one can by no means stretch the dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a criminal colour. As has been rightly emphasised upon by this Court, by way of an observation rendered in the case of Indian Oil Corporation V. NEPC India Ltd., as under:-
"14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law."
42. It was also observed :-
"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors... There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
18. In the case in hand, it is clear from all the sale deeds that the Petitioner has paid heavy amount to vendor and previously his family members objected the sale deed and thereafter some amendment deeds were also executed. In final report submitted by the concerned police station, nowhere it states that what is the role of the present Petitioner in cheating and forgery.
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India Ltd. And Other4 observed in para 13 as under:-
"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles 4 (2006) 6 SCC 736 12 to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2002) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri.) 513] this Court observed : (SCC 9. 643, para 8) "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
20. A careful perusal of the petition, return filed by the State & Complaint along with the materials placed on record would prima facie show as under:-
(i) That, from the year 2016 till 2018, the Petitioner has purchased various properties from Md. Idris (which were then recorded in his name), vide various registered sale deed after paying the fair market consideration and a total sum of Rs 10,98,42,955/- (Ten Crore Ninety Eight Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Five) has been transferred in the bank account of Md. Idris from the bank account of Petitioner on various dates.
(ii) That, later on vide amendment deed dated 28.02.2018, one plot no. i.e. Khasra no.886/4, which was at relevant time erroneously recorded in the name of Md. Idris, had been deleted from the 13 aforesaid sale deed, and an amount of Rs 1,83,23,000/- has been refunded back to the Petitioner on pro-rata basis.
(iii) That, thereafter in the year 2019, a complaint with regard to aforesaid sale deeds and other sale deeds executed in favour of another accused person namely Aftab Siddiqui has been filed by complainant namely Ayesha Siddiqui (who although happens to be daughter of the Victim Md. Idris but was residing separately from his father at relevant time and not a party to aforesaid transactions), pursuant to which the crime in question has been registered against Aftab Siddiqui and other accused persons including the Petitioner herein.
21. It is pertinent to note that the Victim Md. Idris under his own signature has filed a civil suit for recovery money of amount of Rs 7,26,19,715/- against the accused Aftab Siddiqui only and not against the present Petitioner. Further, the suit filed by Md. Idris for cancellation of sale deed is with respect to only one sale deed and not the entire transaction which includes other three sale-deed/documents executed by and between the parties.
22. The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, show that the present Petitioner seems to be a bonafide purchaser, who has paid entire consideration amount to the land owner and the Victim himself has no grievance related to recovery of money with the present Petitioner as is evident from the Agreement Deed with respect to deletion of Khasra No.886/4. That apart, the case of other accused persons namely Aftab Siddiqui, Aarif Ahmed Qureshi and Abdul Gani, against whom charge sheet has been filed, stands on an altogether different footing than that of the case of the present Petitioner.
23. From the language of Section 415 IPC, one of the essential ingredients for the offence of cheating is deception, but in the present case, looking to all the aforesaid land 14 transactions it is nowhere reflects that the Petitioner in any manner cheated the land owner.
24. From the given set of facts it may make out a family dispute.
In this case, prima facie, no criminal offence appears to have been committed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner seems to be a bonafide purchaser in this case.
25. In view of aforesaid, I.A. No.01/2021 is allowed. The proceeding of the impugned FIR No.23/2019 registered at Police Station Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1) and further investigation/criminal proceeding in respect of the present Petitioner only shall remain stayed till the final disposal of the petition.
26. All the contentions raised by the parties are left open which may be decided at the time of final hearing.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde