Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2004 (RAJ)

Lachha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-13

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 137/2012 registered at Police Station Bagra, Jalore for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complainant being the real estate agent has misused the process of criminal law to harm the petitioner. i:cording to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is posted as peon and us having ownership on 0.79 Hectare land on the basis of Court decree. The petitioner had agreed to sell this land for sale consideration of Rupees Fifty Eight lies to alleged real estate developer named Jabbar Singh. An agreement to sell 1 as executed between the petitioner and the complainant Jabbar Singh on 30.11.2011. The petitioner had received Rupees Three Lacs as an earnest money, after, the petitioner had received various sums. The land to be sold by the petitioner was subject matter of the litigation as one Geega Ram had filed an appeal challenging the decree in favour of the petitioner. 3. Shri R.S. Gill appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner (as made to understand by the complainant and his associate Bhanwar Singh lat they will effect compromise on behalf of the petitioner with Geega Ram. Therefore, another agreement on 22.12.2011 was executed between the petitioner, complainant Jabbar Singh and Bhanwar Singh wherein it was noticed That Rupees Thirty Lacs were to be paid to the petitioner within twenty five days. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rupees Fifteen Lacs were paid and for remaining Rupees Fifteen Lacs were paid by way of a cheque issued by the complainant which on presentation had bounced. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner cheated the complainant effecting a compromise with Geega Ram. On basis of the compromise, the appeal was withdrawn on 22.12.2011, the same day when mother agreement regarding Rupees Thirty Lacs was executed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has annexed documents to say that Geega lam sold land to Rana Ram for payment who later sold the same to Jabbar Singh complainant. 6. On basis of the compromise, the appeal was withdrawn on 22.12.2011, the same day when mother agreement regarding Rupees Thirty Lacs was executed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has annexed documents to say that Geega lam sold land to Rana Ram for payment who later sold the same to Jabbar Singh complainant. 6. It is to be noticed that sale deed made by Geega Ram in favour of Rana lam was witnessed by Bhanwar Singh who along with the complainant Jabbar Singh was signatory to the agreement to sell dated 22.12.2011. 7. The counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that the present F.I.R. has been lodged only to pressurise the petitioner to withdrawn prosecution of tie complaint filed by him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as the cheque of Rupees Fifty Lacs issued by the complainant has not been encashed. Accordingly to the counsel for the petitioner having completed the sale transaction of the land complainant has dishonestly stopped the payment of the cheque and thereafter, has lodged the present F.I.R. 8. Taking totality of the circumstances and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. Consequently, interim order already in favour of the petitioner is affirmed and the present petition is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioners shall abide by all the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.Bail application allowed. *******