Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1610 (RAJ)

Priya Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 199/2011 registered at P.S. Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara for the offenes under Sections 143, 447 and 384 I.P.C. 2. The dispute revolves around two plots bearing nos. 163 and 164 located in Araji No. 1031 and 1033 of Sanganer Colony, Kota Road, Bhilwara. The complainant Vikas claims to have purchased these two plots admeasuring 40x35 ft. from the original Khatedar Gattu Devi @ Rs. 2000/- per plot. The complainant claimed that he was in possession of the plots since the year 1989. He alleged that the price of the land escalated significantly and thus, Kanhaiya Lal and Laxmilal who are property dealers created fictitious sale documents of the plot no. 163 in the name of Chanta, Sosar Devi, Chandi and Raju and for plot no. 164 in the name of the petitioner. It was also alleged that Gattu Devi the khatedar had expired long back. The complainant further alleged that when he started construction on the plots, Kanhaiyalal and Laxmilal brought their henchman and obstructed the complainant from carrying out the work. He submitted a complaint in the court with these allegations. The complaint was forwarded to Police for registering of an F.I.R. 3. An F.I.R. No. 199/2011 was registered at Police Station Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 451 and 447 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the plots in question were purchased by the first informant Vikas and one Jitendra Dangi from Gattu Devi through the property dealer Hemant Achliya. The I.O. also came to the conclusion that the Khatedar of the property in question had already executed another agreement for sale of the plot no. 164 in favour of Mahendra Pal Singh in the year 1985. Mahendra Pal Singh in his turn sold the plot to Sohani Devi w/o Roduji in the year 1989. Thereafter, an agreement of sale was executed by Sohani Devi in favour of the petitioner on 9.3.2007. The I.O. concluded that the petitioner purchased the property in question without ascertaining the title thereof and thus she was prima-facie liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 384 and 193 I.P.C. 4. Thereafter, an agreement of sale was executed by Sohani Devi in favour of the petitioner on 9.3.2007. The I.O. concluded that the petitioner purchased the property in question without ascertaining the title thereof and thus she was prima-facie liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 384 and 193 I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted to be true on the face of the record, then too, the petitioner has been wrongly inducted as an accused in this case. He submits that Sohani Devi had purchased the property in question from Mahendra Pal Singh by an agreement executed in the year 1989. The petitioner in turn purchased the property in the year 2007. Mahendra Pal Singh was in possession of the plot much before the agreement entered into between the Khatedar and the complainant. Learned counsel thus submits that the complainant's claim over the property in question is weaker than that of the petitioner. He further submits that even if the allegations levelled by the prosecution are admitted as true then too, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 384 and 193 I.P.C. 5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned Public Prosecutor was unable to controvert the fact that the agreement to sale executed in the petitioner's favour has been found to be genuine upon being examined by the F.S.L. 6. Upon going through the material available on record, it is evident that the channel of documents in favour of the petitioner discloses a stronger claim than that possessed by the complainant. It is relevant to mention here that in the year 1985, i.e. more than four years before the complainant purchased the plot no. 164 through an agreement, the same plot was sold by the Khatedar Gattu Devi to Mahendra Pal Singh. Mahendra Pal Singh in his turn sold the plot to Smt. Sohani Devi w/o Roduji on 15.11.1989. Thereafter Smt. Sohani Devi sold the plot to the petitioner. Both the complainant as well as the petitioner claim the right to the property on the strength of these agreements. Neither of them has any registered sale deed in their favour. Mahendra Pal Singh in his turn sold the plot to Smt. Sohani Devi w/o Roduji on 15.11.1989. Thereafter Smt. Sohani Devi sold the plot to the petitioner. Both the complainant as well as the petitioner claim the right to the property on the strength of these agreements. Neither of them has any registered sale deed in their favour. Smt. Sohani Devi's thumb impressions on the sale agreement executed in the petitioner's favour have been found to be genuine upon examination through F.S.L. Thus, if the complainant's allegations are examined in the light of the material collected during investigation, it would be evident that none of the offences i.e. the offences under Sections 143, 447, 384 and 193 I.P.C. which the I.O. has concluded to be made out against the petitioner in his investigation report are made out against her. 7. In this view of the matter, the proceeding of the F.I.R. impugned cannot be permitted to continue against the petitioner as the same amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The proceedings of F.I.R. No. 199/2011 P.S. Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara are quashed qua the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******