Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1979 (RAJ)

Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-12-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.292/2015 registered at Police Station Udai Mandir Nagar, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. 3. Facts in brief are that the respondent no.2 Chotu Singh the complainant, filed the FIR under challenge through a complaint with the allegation that the petitioner accused executed an agreement to sell his agricultural land measuring 54 bighas 9 biswas in favour of the complainant on 20.3.2013 for a consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs. At the time of execution of the agreement, half of the land was entered in the name of the petitioner's maternal grandfather Roop Singh. The sole heir of Roop Singh was the petitioner's mother. The land was to devolve upon the name of the petitioner on the death of his maternal grandmother but inadvertently it was entered in the name of Jabbar Singh, Nathu Singh, Man Singh and Ram Singh residents of Sevala. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of S.D.M., Luni for setting aside the said mutation entry. It is alleged in the complaint that while entering into the transaction, it was specifically mentioned in the agreement that after the aforesaid appeal was decided, the accused would get his entire share of the land registered in favour of the complainant. However, on 6.4.2015, the appeal which was pending in the Court of S.D.M., Luni was withdrawn in connivance with the afore-named Jabbar Singh, Nathu Singh, Man Singh and Ram Singh and thereby, the petitioner cheated the complainant. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR on various grounds. A copy of the civil suit filed by the complainant Chotu Singh for specific performance of contract has been placed on record and on the strength thereof, it is urged that since the complainant has already availed of the civil remedy for specific performance, parallel proceedings of the FIR cannot be permitted to continue. The petitioner has further set up a case in his misc. petition that as a matter of fact, the agreement on which the complainant relies upon is forged and that the petitioner never executed any such document. The petitioner has further set up a case in his misc. petition that as a matter of fact, the agreement on which the complainant relies upon is forged and that the petitioner never executed any such document. The petitioner also claims to have filed an FIR for fraud and forgery against the respondent no.2 which is allegedly pending investigation. 5. Shri C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that even if the allegations leveled in the FIR impugned are accepted to be true on their face value, then too no prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner so as to permit the investigation of the impugned FIR. He urged that the allegations even if accepted to be true at the highest, disclose a dispute purely civil in nature and as such, the proceedings of the FIR amount to a gross abuse of process of Court. He relied on the following judgments in support of his arguments:- (i) M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and ors. reported in AIR 1997 SCW 4084 . (ii) Radheyshyam Kejriwal. v. State of West Bengal and anr. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 . (iii) Paramjeet Batra. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 67 . (iv) Rajendra Kumbhat & anr. v. State of Rajasthan & anr. reported in 2015(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1599 . and prayed that the misc. petition be accepted and the impugned FIR be quashed. 6. Per contra, Ms.Vandana Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant and learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner's counsel.Learned public prosecutor has submitted a factual report of the investigating officer as per which, after conducting thorough investigation, the investigating officer has concluded that the petitioner cheated the complainant in relation to the questioned sale agreement and as such, prima-facie case for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC is made out against him. They thus submitted that it is not a fit case wherein this Court should exercise the inherent powers to quash the impugned FIR. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar. Perused the impugned FIR as well as the material available on the record. I have also given respectful consideration to the case law cited at the Bar. 8. They thus submitted that it is not a fit case wherein this Court should exercise the inherent powers to quash the impugned FIR. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar. Perused the impugned FIR as well as the material available on the record. I have also given respectful consideration to the case law cited at the Bar. 8. Suffice it to say that the principal allegation of the complainant is that while entering into the agreement, the petitioner specifically undertook to get the property registered in the name of the complainant after the mutation entry was rectified in his favour. It was mentioned in the agreement that the petitioner had challenged the wrong mutation entry in the Court of S.D.M., Luni. However, significantly enough, rather than prosecuting the said proceeding, the petitioner withdrew the appeal allegedly in connivance with Jabbar Singh, Nathu Singh, Man Singh and Ram Singh. Not only this, the petitioner has totally resiled from the agreement and a specific assertion is made in the pleadings of the misc. petition that the petitioner never signed or executed the document in question. The petitioner also claims to have filed an FIR in relation thereto. 9. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the allegation of the petitioner that he never executed the agreement in question, is required to be investigated in the FIR filed by the petitioner. If found true then, the petitioner would be justified in saying that the investigation of the impugned FIR cannot continue. On the other hand, if the said allegation is false, then perse, it is clear that the petitioner acted fraudulently and cheated the complainant and consequently, he is required to be prosecuted for such an action. 10. If found true then, the petitioner would be justified in saying that the investigation of the impugned FIR cannot continue. On the other hand, if the said allegation is false, then perse, it is clear that the petitioner acted fraudulently and cheated the complainant and consequently, he is required to be prosecuted for such an action. 10. The judgments cited at the Bar are based on entirely different facts and as such, do not help the petitioner for a moment.In the case of Pepsi Foods (supra), the petitioners therein were exonerated of the criminal proceedings since there was no material to show that the petitioners therein were in any manner connected with the adulterated beverage.In the case of Radheyshyam Kejriwal (supra), the petitioner therein sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground of exoneration in related adjudication proceedings of civil nature, which admitted is not the situation in the case at hand.In the case of Paramjeet Batra (supra), the FIR was filed in relation to distribution of profit of the hotel and the disputed claim about its ownership. In that background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pending civil suit will take care of all the issues.In the case of Rajendra Kumbhat (supra), the FIR filed with relation to the dispute regarding payment of interest amount was challenged. In that background, this Court held that the dispute was purely of civil nature and, therefore, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were exercised for quashing the FIR under challenge.None of such situations noticed in the above judgments are available in the case at hand. As such, the judgments cited by Shri Kotwani do not help the petitioner. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR impugned at the inception. The petitioner if so advised is at liberty to submit a representation to the investigating officer for ventilating his grievances. The investigating officer, while filing the result of investigation of the impugned FIR in the Court concerned shall take note of such representation. The proceedings and the result of investigation of the F.I.R. No.284/2015 filed at the instance of the accused petitioner against the respondent no.2 shall also be kept in mind while concluding the investigation of the impugned FIR. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant miscellaneous petition is hereby dismissed. 13. The proceedings and the result of investigation of the F.I.R. No.284/2015 filed at the instance of the accused petitioner against the respondent no.2 shall also be kept in mind while concluding the investigation of the impugned FIR. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant miscellaneous petition is hereby dismissed. 13. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******