Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: rpc in Kuldeep Raj Gupta vs State And Ors. on 14 September, 2017Matching Fragments
Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate with Mr. P.S Pawar, Advocate for R-2 & 3.
1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks quashment of criminal proceedings including order dated 02.04.2007 where under the Court has taken the cognizance of offences under Section 420 RPC along with 504/506 RPC in criminal challan in FIR no.90/2006 of Police Station Channi Himmat, titled "State Vs. Kuldeep Raj Gupta" pending before the Court of learned Special Municipal Magistrate, Jammu.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. From the perusal of challan pending before court below, it reveals that Thakur Dass respondent filed a written complaint before CJM Jammu against petitioner herein for commission of offence under sections 341/352/504/506 RPC on the ground that petitioner-Kuldeep Raj through power of attorney entered into an agreement to sell his residential plot measuring 50X100 ft situated at Sector 6 Channi Himmat on 10.01.1998 for Rs. 1 lac; that at the time of agreement he paid Rs. 80,000/ to him personally; rest of amount was to be paid at the time of sale deed; that attorney delivered possession of plot to him at that time; that relevant documents including allotment order, lease deed executed in favour of Kuldeep Raj by housing Board were also handed over to him. That after ¾ month, he tried to locate attorney holder but came to know that he had gone outside country; then he requested accused to get the plot transferred on the name of nominee; that intention of accused was bad so he avoided and said that his attorney would execute the sale; that his nominee Nisha Wazir prepared all the transfer documents and also obtained signature of attorney Chander Shekhar and went to office of Housing Board on 14.01.2006, where his nominee came to know that accused, the original allottee-Kuldeep Raj, has canceled the attorney and has raised objection for transfer. That complainant on 01.03.2006 approached the accused for return of money at least along with interest, but accused asked him to come after two month; complainant no. 2 on instruction of complainant no.1 then again on 7.5.2006 approached the accused along with Amar Chowdhary at the house of accused situated at Trikuta Nagar in evening and asked to do needful, but accused caused alarm by threatening that he would not at all return the money and would rather forcibly recover possession of the plot; complainant no. 2 get frightened and tried to come out of the house of the accused but accused pushed him physically to one corner of the room, restrained his movement and kept on threatening. Had Amar Chowdhary not intervened, the accused would have further misbehaved him. While pushing the complainant no.2, the accused called him bad names and insulted him thereby provoking him knowing that such provocation may result into breach of peace; accused also threatened that if complainant no.1 did not vacate the plot in question, he would be eliminated from gunda element. Complainant prayed for proceeding u/s 341, 352, 504, 506, 417, 418 and 420 RPC .
10. This complaint was referred to police of Police Station Channi Himmat by Court for registration of case and for investigation on 1.5.2006. Police accordingly registered FIR No.90/2006 u/s 341, 352, 504, 506, 417, 418 and 420 RPC. After investigation police did not prove case u/s 352,417, 418 and 420 RPC, but proved offence u/s 504/506 RPC.
11. Accordingly final police report was submitted to JMIC for disposal under law since 504/506 was non cognizable offences. Complainant was called, who filed protest petition.
18. Further, in present case, police after investigation came to conclusion that only non cognizable offences u/s 504/506/ RPC were made out. So produced final report. Court below after entertaining protest report, came to conclusion that cognizable offence u/s 420 RPC was also made out from evidence collected. Offence u/s section 420 RPC is warrant trial. So report sent by police after collecting evidence would be treated as report in terms of section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. So proceeding shall be commenced by JMIC as warrant trial case as per chapter CHAPTER-XXI of Cr.P.C.