Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1437 (RAJ)

Ranbahadur Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-06-14

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 98 dated 16.4.2009, registered at Police Station, Mavli, Dist. Udaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 466, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and .ill the subsequent proceedings thereto. 2. Briefly stated the fact necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mavli, Dist. Udaipur against the petitioners alleging therein that she owned agricultural land measuring 8 bighas and 8 biswas located at village Mavli. She further alleged that as she being a house wife was unable to attend the needs of the land, she gave the rights for maintenance of the aforesaid agricultural land and for other purposes as well to the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh through a power of attorney executed on 26.10.1999. It was further stated in the complaint that the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh induced the complainant into believing that she would be paid a good price of her land, and therefore, she executed the power of attorney in his favour for a period of six months. 3. The accused is said to have given certain cheques to the complainant. The cheques, upon presentation were dishonoured, on which, she contacted the accused-petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh, who, in turn, informed her that the deal for sale of the land had been cancelled. 4. The complainant further stated that she received a summon from the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 relating to Civil Case No. 45/2009 and on enquiry she came to know that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and forged certain affidavits and agreements and on the basis thereof a suit for specific performance of contract had been filed by the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra seeking a direction for the execution of the agreement to sell in her favour by the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh on the basis of the power of attorney allegedly executed by the complainant in favour of Ranbahadur Singh. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons committed forgery by preparing false documents and by using the same as original, attempted to grab the complainant's land. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons committed forgery by preparing false documents and by using the same as original, attempted to grab the complainant's land. Certain aspersions were made on the validity of the documents, which were the basis of the suit filed against the complainant. 5. The complaint was sent to the Police Station Mavli, Distt. Udaipur for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code and an F.I.R. No. 98/2009 was registered for the offences referred to above the investigation commenced. 6. The petitioner have approached this Court by way of instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the aforementioned F.I.R. 7. Mr. Ashok Upadhayay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that from a bare reading of the F.I.R. impugned, no prima facie offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioners and as such the same deserve to be quashed. It is contended that complainant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and he, on the basis of the valid power of attorney executed by the complainant in his favour entered into an agreement to sell the land in favour of Smt. Sumitra on 1.4.2000. It was mentioned in the agreement that the registration of the sale deed was not possible on account of the pendency of a revenue case bearing No. 142/1998 pending in the Court of the SDO, Mavli. He further contends that as a matter of fact it is the complainant who has tried to play foul in this case. He submits that knowing very well that the petitioner No. 1 had already executed an agreement for selling the land in favour of petitioner No. 2, the complainant further sold the land to another person namely Shivlal at a higher rate through a registered sale deed whilst concealing the factum of earlier sale. When the petitioner No. 2 came to know about the said fraudulent sale, she filed a civil suit praying for specific performance of the contract in the Court of the learned District Judge, Udaipur and upon receiving a notice of the said civil suit, the F.I.R. impugned has been lodged with mala fide intentions. He further submits that the power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh was a registered document and it gave him the unfettered right to sell the complainant's land. He further submits that the power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh was a registered document and it gave him the unfettered right to sell the complainant's land. Ranbahadur Singh acting on the basis of the valid power of attorney executed the agreement to sell the land in the year 2000 but the complainant developed a greedy motive and therefore she made an illegal and fraudulent sale to one Shivlal in the year 2008 in order to frustrate the contract of sale executed by the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra. Learned counsel thus submits that ex facie a reading of the allegations made in the F.I.R. impugned does not disclose commission of any offence, for which the same has been registered and hence the same is liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot oppose the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submit that the power of attorney was executed by the complainant in favour of the accused-petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh on 26.10.1999. The power of attorney was effective only for a period of six months and in order to misuse the power of attorney executed by the complainant, the accused persons conspired together and created an ante dated false and fabricated agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra. It is also contended that the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh has executed a false affidavit in favour of accused-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra and has filed and has filed the same in the civil suit in order to fraudulently deprive the complainant of her land. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon considering the arguments advanced at the bar and going through the material available on the record, apparently, the following undisputed facts can be said to be available on the record: 1. The power of attorney was executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh 2. An agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra on 1.4.2000. 3. The power of attorney was executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh 2. An agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra on 1.4.2000. 3. A civil suit was filed by the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra against the complainant respondent No. 2 for execution of the agreement dated 1.4.2000. 4. The signatures on the documents are not disputed by the complainant. 5. The petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh gave certain cheques to the complainant and her husband in the year 2002, one of which, on presentation, has been dishonoured and the three such cheques are available on the record. 10. From these undisputed facts, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that none of the documents, which are said to have been prepared in this case, can be said to be forged documents by any stretch of imagination. The power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh is admitted. The Investigating Officer has himself collected the material to the effect that the documents, which were utilised for preparing the sale deed, are prepared on valid stamps and the statements of the concerned stamp vendors have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in this regard. The petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra, therefore, is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question on the basis of a validly executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh by the complainant. 11. The petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 namely Shabbir Ali and Praveen Vaishnav are the witnesses of the agreement to sell executed by petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh in favour of petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra and petitioner No. 5 Mahendra Kumar Jain is totally unconcerned and unconnected with the whole transaction. 12. The fact, which is adverse to the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh as per the record is that he has executed another document in the year 2002; under which he has agreed to purchase the complainant's land for himself. 12. The fact, which is adverse to the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh as per the record is that he has executed another document in the year 2002; under which he has agreed to purchase the complainant's land for himself. It does not stand to reason that when the land had already been sold by petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh to petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra in the year 2000 then why he would enter into a agreement to purchase the complaint's land for himself again in the year 2002. 13. The complainant claimed in her F.I.R. that the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh had again purchased the complainants land in the year 2002. A public notice issued by the counsel for the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh in the news paper 'Rajasthan Patrika dated 1.8.2008 is available on the record, as per which, the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh has claimed to have purchased the complainant's land in the year 2002. It does not stand to reason as to why the petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh would again purchase the complainant's land in the year 2002 from her, knowing very well that he himself had sold the land to petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra in the year 2000 itself. Thus, apparently, the conduct of the accused-petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh does not appear to be above board and he appears to be involved in creating fraudulent documents for the purpose of unsettling the sale which he himself had executed in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that so far as petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra, No. 3 Shabbir Ali, No. 4 Praveen Vaishnav and No. 5 Mahendra Kumar Jain are concerned, ex facie, a bare reading of the F.I.R. impugned and the material available on the investigation file do not disclose any such material, from which it can be said that these petitioners have committed any offence, for which, the F.I.R. has been registered. These petitioners neither induced the complainant fraudulently nor made her part with any valuable security so as to permit their prosecution for the aforesaid offences. These petitioners neither induced the complainant fraudulently nor made her part with any valuable security so as to permit their prosecution for the aforesaid offences. Further more, none of the documents which are available on the record, can be said to be forged documents because the execution of the power of attorney by the complainant in favour of petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh is admitted. The signatures of the parties on the agreement to sell are also not in dispute. Therefore, ex facie, the purchaser of the property on the basis of the agreement to sell and the witnesses to the agreement cannot be said to be responsible for the offences, for which the F.I.R. has been registered. 15. There is yet a very important document available on the case diary, as per which, one Bhawani Kant has executed a document in favour of Shabbir Ali, the witness of the sale executed in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sumitra. As per this agreement, Bhawani Kant executed the sale deed in favour of Shabbir Ali on the basis of the alleged agreement executed by the complainant respondent No. 2 Shanta Bai in his favour in the year 2006. Thereafter, the said agreement was cancelled on 22.11.2008. 16. The conduct of petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh is highly suspicious in this case and the F.I.R. impugned registered against him does not deserve to be quashed by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 17. Resultantly, this misc. petition succeeds in part. So far as petitioners No. 2 Smt. Sumitra, No. 3 Shabbir Ali, No. 4 Praveen Vaishnav and No. 5 Mahendra Kumar Jain are concerned, from a bare reading of the F.I.R. impugned and the material available on the record of the case, it cannot be said that the aforesaid petitioners are responsible for any of the offences, for which the F.I.R. impugned has been registered against them. Thus, the F.I.R. impugned registered against these petitioners is hereby quashed.However, the proceedings of the F.I.R. impugned shall continue so far as petitioner No. 1 Ranbahadur Singh is concerned.Stay petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******