Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1120 (RAJ)

Gajendra Singh Parihar v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-22

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. The matter comes up on an application (CRLMA No.433/2015) with a prayer for early listing of the case. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today. Hence, the application (CRLMA No.433/2015) for early listing of the case is disposed of. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.2 while alleging that the petitioners are Directors of a private company viz. M/s. Curious House Private Limited and the petitioner No.1 has approached the respondent No.2 and offered to sell 38508 sq. ft. of land belonging to the private company. It is contended in the FIR that the respondent No.2 has agreed for purchasing the said land and for that purpose he has given Rs. 50,00,000/- in advance through cheque and thereafter time to time has given cash payment to the other petitioners. It is alleged that after some time when the complainant-respondent No.2 had asked to get the sale-deed executed in his favour, the petitioners had refused to do so and as such the petitioners have committed offences of cheating and breach of trust. The impugned FIR has been registered by the police for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that from bare reading of the whole FIR, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and, therefore, the impugned FIR is not maintainable. It is contended that even though, if it is admitted that the petitioners have received the amount from the complainant-respondent No.2 for the purpose of selling the land of the private company and thereafter refused to sell the said land, no offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 IPC is made out against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2258 ; Dalip Kaur & Ors. v. Jagnar Singh & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 3191; V.Y. Jose & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2009) 3 SCC 78 ; V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 361 ; Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. v. Jagnar Singh & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 3191; V.Y. Jose & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2009) 3 SCC 78 ; V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 361 ; Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. v. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr., 2006 Cr.L.r. (SC) 482 and Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2007) 12 SCC 1 . Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court rendered in Pramod Kumar Chhaparwal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2012(1) RLW 375; Sidharth v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013 (2) RLW 1233 (Raj.) and Devendra @ Chhotu Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SB CRLMP No.1721/2010) decided on 02.05.2013 and the decision of Uttaranchal High Court rendered in Pradosh Kumar Awasthi v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2011 (2) UC 1482. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have argued that the petitioners have received the amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from the complainant-respondent No.2 through cheque and in cash with the promise that they would sell the land of the private company to the respondent No.2, however, later on, they refused to act upon the said promise and as such committed the offences of cheating and breach of trust. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that from beginning, the intention of the petitioners was to cheat the respondent No.2 and this has specifically been mentioned in the FIR too. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the investigation into the matter is complete and during the course of investigation, the petitioners have admitted that they have received some amount from the complainant-respondent No.2 for the purpose of selling of the land of private company, however, the same has not been sold to him. As per the factual report, the police has also recovered the receipt written by the petitioner No.1, wherein he has admitted to receive the amount from the complainant-respondent No.2 through cheque and in cash. As per the said receipt, the petitioner No.1 has also promised to repay the said amount but later on, he refused to do so. 8. As per the factual report, the police has also recovered the receipt written by the petitioner No.1, wherein he has admitted to receive the amount from the complainant-respondent No.2 through cheque and in cash. As per the said receipt, the petitioner No.1 has also promised to repay the said amount but later on, he refused to do so. 8. In the impugned FIR, the complainant-respondent No.2 has clearly averred that the petitioner No.1 has lured him to purchase the land of the private company and later on, after receiving the said amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- in instalment, all the petitioners have refused to sell the land for one or another excuse and as such committed offence of breach of trust. 9. In the aforesaid decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners it has been held that where a dispute is purely of civil nature, the criminal prosecution cannot be lodged. However, in the present case, as per admitted position taken by the parties during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that the matter is purely of civil nature. 10. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.