Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Majestic Properties Pvt Ltd And Ors vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp And Ors on 28 September, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 868/2011
1. Majestic Properties (Pvt) Ltd. Having their registered office at
1/18B, asaf ali road, new delhi-110002, through its authorized
signatory shri prashant sharma, son of shri s. n. Sharma,
resident of a-34, shivaji marg, nehru nagar, jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Mr. Anurag gupta, managing director; majestic properties pvt.
Ltd, 1/18B, asaf ali road, new delhi-110002.
3. Mr. Prashant Sharma, son of shri s n sharma, resident of a-34,
shivaji marg, nehru nagar, jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP.
2. The station house officer (SHO), Police station, jaipur
development authority, J L N marg, jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
3. Bhagwan Singh, son of Shri Heera Lal, R/o B-3/1, SBBJ Flats,
Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Manoj Jain son of Shri Laxmi Narain Jain, R/o House No.756,
Jain Mandir Area, Village Lalxmangarh, District Alwar
(Rajasthan).
5. Manoj Bansal son of Shri Subhash Chand Bansal, R/o 282-A,
Scheme No.10B, Gopalpura bypass road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
6. Mahima Bansal, wife of Manoj Bansal, r/o 282-A, Scheme
No.10B, Gopalpura bypass Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
7. Subhash Chand Bansal, Son of Shri Niranjan Lal Subhash
Chand Bansal, R/o 282-A, Scheme No.10B, Gopalpura bypass
Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
8. Jyoti singh, wife of Lt. Col. Sandeep singh, R/o C-9/9500,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
9. Ishtiyaq Chaudhary, Son of Shri M.I. Choudhary, R/o B-12
Fatehiba Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
10. Babu Lal Chudla, son of Shri Mahadev Prasad Chudla, R/o
73, Gopinathji-ki-Gali, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
11. Rikhab Chand Jain, s/o Shri Laxmi Narain Jain, R/o B-355A,
10B, Scheme (Rajasthan)
12. Hemant kumar, through SHO (Shri rajendra sharma) PS
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 11:14:34 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-868/2011]
13. Nitin Bhatnagar, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police
Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
14. Manish Kumar, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police
Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
15. Mr. Saurabh, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police
Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
16. Shakti Sekra, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police
Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
17. Satish Chand Singhal, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma),
Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
18. Yash Makkar, son of Shri S. N. Makkar, R/o 121, Bahawalpur
Apartment, Plot No.1, Sector - 4, New Delhi-110075.
---Complainant-respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj,
Mr. Anurag Pareek,
Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chauhan,
Mr. Aniket Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahla, PP.
Mr. Suresh Sahni,
Mr. R. M. Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 19.09.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 28.09.2022
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR
No.154/2011 dated 04.03.2011 registered at Police Station Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur for offence(s) punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the
petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents
wrongly lodged the present FIR against the petitioners. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submits that a bare reading of the
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 11:14:34 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-868/2011]
FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioner No.1
Company was in process of development of various projects in
various States. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits
that respondents have an option to cancel their registration and
get the refund from the Company with interest @ 10% P.A.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that previous FIR
No.392/07 was lodged against the petitioner in Police Station
Ashok Nagar, Jaipur in which compromise was arrived between the
parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the
same facts of respondent Nos.3 and 4 lodged an FIRs No.147/08
and 149/08 at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur in which after
investigation, negative final report was filed before the court
concerned and court concerned has accepted the FR filed by the
Investigating Officer and the said order was not challenged by the
respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that
on the same ground, the second and subsequent FIR cannot be
lodged against the petitioners. So, the present FIR filed against
the petitioners be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala
& Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181; (2) Babubhai Vs. State
of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 and (3) Ram
Narayan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.3929/2018 decided on
12.05.2022.
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 11:14:34 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-868/2011]
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
respondents have opposed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners and submitted that it is an admitted
position that the second FIR was not maintainable. Learned
counsel for the respondents also submitted that court can direct to
investigate the matter alongwith other FIR pending against the
petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted
that after investigation, Investigating Officer had found the
offence(s) under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC against the
petitioners. So, petition is misconceived and liable to be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel for the respondents.
It is an admitted position that respondent Nos.3 and 4 previously lodged the FIRs No.147/08 and 149/08 against the petitioners. In these FIRs after investigation, Investigating Officer has filed the negative final report before the court concerned. After that, respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a protest petition before the trial court but trial court had rejected the protest petition and accepted the FR filed by Investigating Officer. It is also admitted position that respondents have an option to cancel their registration and get the refund money with interest @ 10% P.A. In the present petition, majority of the respondents had received money advanced given by them and settled their dispute. It is also admitted position that present FIR lodged by the respondents after FIRs No.147/08 and 149/08. So, in my considered opinion, (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 11:14:34 PM) (5 of 5) [CRLMP-868/2011] second and subsequent FIR is not maintainable on same facts. So, petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed.
Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The FIR bearing No.154/2011 registered at Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur is quashed.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin/83 (Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 11:14:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)