Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition pleading that the petitioner borrowed Rs.8 lacs from Mukesh Panchal and kept his plot measuring 100 square yards as security with him by executing General Power of Attorney (for short 'the GPA') dated 11.03.2015 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Noida. The original GPA dated 2 of 13 11.03.2015 was kept by the petitioner and was agreed to be cancelled after repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 8 lacs. Mukesh Panchal with mala fide intention procured certified copy of the GPA dated 11.03.2015 and on the basis thereof executed sale deed dated 20.03.2015 for plot measuring 50 square yards in favour of complainant Parwati Devi and agreement to sell regarding remaining plot measuring 50 square yards in favour of Saroj after receiving full and final payment. Thereafter, Mukesh Panchal executed and got registered sale deed dated 22.05.2015 in favour of Pankaj Sharma and Mukesh Sharma but subsequently Pankaj Sharma and Yogesh Sharma executed GPA dated 28.05.2015 regarding the same in favour of Mukesh Panchal. The petitioner returned the loan amount of Rs.8 lacs to Mukesh Panchal and thereafter cancelled the GPA on 25.05.2015. After a few days, the petitioner came to know that Mukesh Panchal had executed the above said two sale deeds on the basis of registered GPA dated 11.03.2015 without his knowledge and against his wish in favour of his agents to grab the land of the petitioner. The petitioner made complaint dated 06.10.2015 to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Faridabad on which enquiry was got conducted. The accused persons being very influential persons having high political links succeeded in getting the enquiry filed without any action against them. The petitioner filed representation dated 15.01.2016 before the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad but no action was taken by the Police Commissioner, Faridabad. The petitioner approached this Court by filing CRM-M- 9090-2016 on which directions were issued by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2016 to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad to decide 3 of 13 the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the complainant challenging sale deed in her favour on which status quo order dated 27.05.2016 has been passed in favour of the petitioner. In his written statement filed in that case Mukesh Panchal has admitted that possession of the land was never handed over to him by the petitioner. The petitioner did not make any inducement to the complainant and did not receive any money from her. The petitioner was in possession of the plot and question of forcible dispossession of the complainant from the same did not arise. The petitioner has accordingly sought quashing of the above-said FIR alongwith final report and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

4 of 13

5. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner took loan of Rs.8 lacs from Mukesh Panchal and kept his plot measuring100 square yards as security with him by executing the GPA dated 11.03.2015 which was agreed to be cancelled after repayment of the loan amount. Original GPA was retained by the petitioner and after repayment the petitioner cancelled the GPA on 25.05.2015. Mukesh Panchal with mala fide intention procured certified copy of the GPA dated 11.03.2015 and on the basis thereof executed sale deeds in favour of his own persons to grab his plot as also proved by the fact that Mukesh Panchal executed the sale deed dated 22.05.2015 in favour of Pankaj Sharma and Mukesh Sharma who subsequently executed GPA dated 28.05.2015 in his favour. There is no allegation of the petitioner having made any inducement to the complainant and having received any money from her and offence under section 420 of the IPC is not made out. Since the possession of the plot in question was never handed over to Mukesh Panchal and the petitioner continued to be in possession of the same, question of the petitioner having forcibly taken possession thereof from the complainant did not arise and offences punishable under sections 447 and 448 of the I.P.C. are not made out. The petitioner has already filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction and the FIR has been lodged thereafter by giving civil dispute colour of a criminal offence. The FIR does not disclose any offence and is gross abuse of the process. Therefore, the FIR alongwith final report and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be 5 of 13 quashed for the ends of justice.

12. In the present case the petitioner has claimed that he executed the GPA in favour of Mukesh Panchal by way of security for repayment of loan of ₹ 8 lakhs taken from him and on repayment of loan the petitioner cancelled the GPA but Mukesh Panchal cheated him and without his consent and without making any payment to him executed sale deeds in favour of his persons to grab his plot. The petitioner has also claimed that the petitioner did not make any inducement to the complainant; did not receive any money from her and due to the petitioner being in possession of the plot sold to the complainant, question of taking forcible possession of the plot by him from the complainant did not arise. On the other hand, as per written statement filed in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner, Mukesh Panchal has claimed that he had purchased the plot from the petitioner and got the GPA executed from him and validly executed sale deeds on the basis thereof.

The complainant has claimed that after purchasing the plot from Mukesh Panchal as the GPA of the petitioner, she constructed the 10 of 13 boundary wall and put her construction material in the plot but the accused gave a beating to her labourers, threatened to kill her and forced the complainant and her labourers to leave the plot. The case involves questions as to (i) Whether the petitioner took loan from Mukesh Panchal and executed the GPA as security or sold the plot to Mukesh Panchal, a property dealer and executed the GPA authorising him to execute sale deeds as per such practice followed by the property dealers; (ii) whether Mukesh Panchal cheated the petitioner by fraudulently executing the sale deeds on the basis of the GPA as claimed by the petitioner or Mukesh Panchal, being the property dealer having purchased the plot and duly authorised by the GPA in his favour sell the same, legitimately sold the same on the basis of the GPA as claimed by him (iii) What is the effect of admission of Mukesh Panchal in his written statement as to possession of the plot not having been given to him by the petitioner and (iv) whether the petitioner continued to be in possession of the plot illegally sold to the complainant and did not forcibly take over possession of same or Mukesh Panchal being the GPA duly authorised to sell the plot and hand over possession thereof, sold the same and handed over possession thereof to the complainant and the petitioner forcibly took over possession of the plot sold to the complainant from her. These questions have to be decided on the basis of evidence to be produced during trial and this court cannot go into and adjudicate upon these disputed questions of facts in the instant petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C..