Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 487 (RAJ)

Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-04

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR, FIR No.448/2010, registered at Police Station Behror, District Alwar, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.08.2010, one Ramesh Chand lodged a FIR, FIR No.425/2010, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. He had claimed that he has a land situated in Khasra No.728, Rakba 8.18 Hectare, Khasra No. 730, Rakba 22 Hectare, and Khasra No.731, Rakba 40 Hectare in village Karoda. The said land was sold by a person who impersonated him. The said land was sold to one Shri Pratap Singh. The said seller was identified by Subharam and Mahesh. The said sale-deed was executed on 02.08.2010. The aforesaid details came to the knowledge of the complainant, Ramesh Chand, on 08.08.2010, when some unknown person called him on his mobile. Thereafter, the complainant made enquiries from the office of Sub-registrar, Behror and came to know about the fraudulent sale. 3. Thereafter, in turn Pratap Singh has filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror on 16.08.2010. In the complaint, he has alleged that the present petitioner along with other persons had induced him to buy the land, which they claimed, was in the name of Ramesh Chand. It is upon their inducement that he bought the land from a person who was introduced as Ramesh Chand. However, subsequently, he discovered that the so-called Ramesh Chand was not the real Ramesh Chand. Therefore, he has been cheated by the present petitioner and others. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the concerned Police Station. The said complaint was registered as FIR No.448/ 2010 at Police Station Bahror, District Alwar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the present FIR has been lodged by Pratap Singh in order to escape his liability under the FIR filed by Ramesh Chand. Secondly, that the petitioner happens to be an advocate by profession and his only role in the entire case is that necessary papers were prepared at his table. However, he has neither identified the seller, nor was a witness, nor played any active role. Secondly, that the petitioner happens to be an advocate by profession and his only role in the entire case is that necessary papers were prepared at his table. However, he has neither identified the seller, nor was a witness, nor played any active role. Therefore, prima facie no case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC is made out against the present petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the FIR under challenged. 6. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power to interfere with the FIR under Section 482 is extremely limited one. In case the FIR makes out a prima facie case against the offender, ordinarily the Court should not interfere with the FIR (Refer to State of Haryana & Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 ). The present case is one which does not fall under any of the conditions enumerated in the case of Chaudhary Bhajan Lal (Supra). 7. A bare perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that certain allegations have been made against the petitioner. It is for the Investigating Agency to investigate and to discover the veracity and validity of these allegations.Needless to say, the Investigating Agency is required to carry out a fair and impartial investigation and not to be influenced by any extraneous consideration. 8. Considering that allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR, FIR No.448/2010, registered at Police Station Behror, District Alwar, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code. However, this Court directs the Investigating Agency to carry out a fair and impartial investigation. 9. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******