Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Saurabh Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 10 July, 2013
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2268/2013 SAURABH GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. DATE:10.07.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Reportable Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, for the petitioner.
**** Accused-petitioner, Saurabh Gupta has approached this Court for quashing of FIR No.80/2013, registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur(South), for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
This case has rather a chequered history, which is as under:-
One, Rashid Khan claims to be the son of Daud Khan, who was a General under the Maharaja of Jaipur, Sawai Mansingh II. It is claimed by Rashid Khan that since the Maharaja was pleased with his father's services, he allotted a piece of land, bearing Bungalow No.39, Residency Rajmahal, Jaipur, on 01.01.1950 to his father. He further claimed that he has a letter of allotment, which was duly signed by the Maharaja, on stamp of two Annas, of the erstwhile Jaypore Riyasat. Subsequently, his father expired on 06.04.1970 and his mother expired on 25.04.1996. Thus, he claims to be their only heir and to be in the possession of the said property. According to the petitioner, he purchased the said property from Mr. Rashid Khan through a registered sale deed, dated 22.01.2013. Thus, he is the owner of the said property. However, on 19.02.2013 two persons, namely Narendra Singh and Shakti Singh trespassed on the said property and damaged it. Therefore, on 21.02.2013, the petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur against Narendra Singh and Shakti Singh. On the basis of the said report, the police chalked out a formal FIR, namely FIR No.79/2013, for the offences under Sections 452, 427 and 323 IPC. The petitioner also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Narendra Singh and Shakti Singh, wherein he prayed that they should be restrained from interferring in his peaceful enjoyment of the property. After hearing both the parties, by order dated 09.05.2013, the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur passed an order of status quo.
However, on 22.02.2013 one Rakesh Katoch, the complainant/non-petitioner No.2, claiming himself to be the General Manager of the Rajmahal Palace, lodged a FIR against the petitioner and against one Anand Shandilya, wherein he claimed that the property in dispute namely Bungalow No.39, originally belonged to the erstwhile Ruler of Jaipur, Brig. Bhawani Singh. However, the petitioner and Anand Shandilya entered into a criminal conspiracy with Rashid Khan and prepared certain forged documents. On the basis of the forged documents, they are trying to grab the property, which actually belonged to the erstwhile Ruler Brig. Bhawani Singh and now is the property of his legal heirs. He further claimed that the former Ruler had filed a civil suit against the State Government and against the Jaipur Development Authority with regard to the said property. By judgment dated 24.11.2011, the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, had decreed the suit in favour of the former Ruler. He further alleged that when they received a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then they realised that the petitioner along with Anand Shandilya and Rashid Khan, were trying to grab the said property. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR, as mentioned above, was chalked out for the aforementioned offences. Hence this petition before this Court for quashing the same.
Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, a bare perusal of the facts narrated above, would clearly reveal that the petitioner happens to be the bonafide purchaser of the property from Mr. Rashid Khan, who claims to have inheritated the property from his father. Therefore, the question of the petitioner entering into a criminal conspiracy with Rashid Khan does not even arise.
Secondly, the entire matter is of civil nature. For, there is already a civil suit pending against Narendra Singh and Shakti Singh, filed by the petitioner. However, a criminal colour is now being given by the complainant/non-petitioner No.2.
Thirdly, the complainant/non-petitioner No.2 happens to be a total stranger as he claims to be the General Manager of the Rajmahal Palace and claims that they are being cheated. Relying on the case of Mohammed Ibrahim And Others Vs. State of Bihar And Another, [(2009) 8 SCC 751], the learned counsel has contended that in case there were any cheating, it would be between the seller and the buyer. Therefore, a third party cannot claim that it is being cheated. Hence, ingredients of Section 420 IPC do not even exist.
Fourthly, relying on the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., 2013 Cr.L.R.(SC) 67, he has contended that in case there is a civil suit which is pending, and in case there is an allegation that documents have been forged and fabricated, the said issues can be decided by the civil Court. Therefore, lodging of a criminal case amounts to abuse of the process of law. Hence, the FIR in question deserves to be interferred with.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and considered the case law cited at the Bar, and perused the impugned FIR along with other documents submitted with the petition.
It is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for interfering with the F.I.R. is extremely limited one. In catena of cases, the Apex Court has held that the Court should take the allegations made in the F.I.R. as uncontroverted facts for the time being. In case, the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima-facie made out, then the Court should not interfere with the F.I.R. For, investigation is the arena of the Police; the veracity of the F.I.R. can be investigated only by the Police. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court should refrain from entering into the said arena. Furthermore, while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at the initial stage of investigation, the High Court is not permitted to consider the evidence, which may be produced by the defense during the course of the trial. At the initial stage, when the investigation is in progress, to enter into defense evidence would be a premature step. Therefore, the High Court should be weary of interfering with the investigation and in quashing the F.I.R. at the out set.
At this initial juncture, this Court has no option other than to treat the allegations made in the FIR as uncontroverted facts. The allegations made by the complainant/non-petitioner is that the property in dispute was originally owned by the former Ruler. After his death, it has come as an estate inheritated by his legal heirs. According to him, there was a civil suit filed by the former Ruler against the State and the Jaipur Development Authority, which was decreed in his favour. Thus, according to him the property in dispute is a part of the estate of the former Ruler. The allegation against the petitioner, and other co-accused person, is that they have forged certain documents claiming themselves to be the owner. At this initial stage, this Court cannot consider the documents which may be available and which may buttress the case of the petitioner. Naturally the issue whether the documents have been forged by the petitioner in order to establish his ownership and possession are actually forged or not, is a fact to be investigated by the police. At this juncture, this Court cannot comment upon the genuineness of these documents.
Of course, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Paramjeet Batra (supra), to buttress his contention that the issue of forged and fabricated documents can be considered by the civil Court. However, the said case does not rush to the rescue of the petitioner. For, in the said case a civil suit was already pending between the respondent No.2(in the said case) and the appellant, Paramjeet Batra and the respondent Nos.3, 4 and five others. Respondent No.2 had alleged that the appellant and the other respondents had entered into a criminal conspiracy, and had prepared forged documents, and those forged documents were filed in the Court. It is in these circumstances when the civil suit was already pending and allegation was made between the parties, that the Apex Court observed that the forged documents could be examined by the civil Court itself. However, in the present case there is no civil suit pending between the complainant and the petitioner. In fact, the civil suit is pending between the petitioner and Mr. Narendra Singh and Mr. Shakti Singh, wherein the complainant/non-petitioner No.2 is not even a party. Therefore, whether these documents are actually forged or fabricated or not, is again an issue to be investigated by the police. Hence, the case of Paramjeet Batra (supra), does not support the plea raised by the learned counsel.
Even the case of Mohammed Ibrahim And Others (supra), does not support the case of the petitioner. In that case the respondent had filed a complaint against Mohammed Ibrahim and others, wherein he had claimed that he was the owner of Katha No.715, Khasra Nos.1971 and 1973 admeasuring 1 bigha, 5 kathas and 18 dhurs. According to him, the first accused who was unconnected with the said land and who had no title thereto, had executed two registered sale deeds dated 02.06.2003 in favour of the second accused in respect of a portion of the said land measuring 8 kathas and 13 dhurs. According to the complainant-second respondent, the third, fourth and fifth accused were the witness, scribe and stamp vendor respectively of the sale deeds. They had conspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents. When he confronted accused 1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abused him and hit him with fists and told him that he can do what he wanted, but they will not give him the possession of the land. It is in these circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.
Needless to say, it is for the investigating agency to examine whether the ingredients of cheating are made out or not. It would be too early for this Court to go into the said question. After all, the investigation is the arena for the police and not for this Court.
Nonetheless, this Court does expect the Investigating Officer not to merely investigate the case from the point of view of the complainant, but most importantly to also investigate it from the point of view of the accused. If there are documents available with the accused which buttress his case, that he is the bonafide purchaser, which belie the fact that the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to grab the land which belongs to the former Ruler, obviously the Investigating Officer should consider these documents as well. After all, the Investigating Officer is neither a spokesman for the complainant, nor is expected to be guided by the allegations made by the complainant. The Investigating Officer is duty bound to collect the evidence available from the side of the complainant, as well as from the side of the accused. It is only after considering all the oral and documentary evidence, if any, that the Investigating Officer has to decide whether to file a charge-sheet against the alleged accused persons, or to file a negative F.R. Therefore, instead of quashing the FIR, as prayed by the petitioner, and considering the fact that FIR cannot be quashed within the limited jurisdiction of 482 Cr.P.C., this Court directs the Investigating Officer to consider all the documents available with the accused persons to decide whether the ingredients of the alleged offences exist or not. And to determine whether a charge-sheet or a negative F.R. should be filed by him or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that a representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Police Commissioner, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, a copy of which was sent to the SHO, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur along with all the relevant documents. Since, the relevant documents have been placed before the concerned SHO, it is but expected of him that he will also investigate the case in light of the documents submitted before him.
With these directions, this petition is disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(R.S. CHAUHAN),J.
/KKC/ Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
KAMLESH KUMAR P.A