Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 378 (RAJ)

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-10

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.215/2008 dated 26.11.2008 of Police Station, Degana, District Nagaur registered at the instance of respondent No.2. 2. In the FIR, the respondent No.2 has contended that he was partner of firm Zenith & Company along with his mother and one Bastimal son of Ladoo Ram, resident of Padu Kallan, District Nagaur. It is also contended that the said partnership firm was constituted on 26.02.1980 and dissolved on 05.11.1983 and thereafter, the above named firm was merged into M/s Zenith Gwar Gum Industries Private Ltd. (for short 'the company' hereinafter). It is alleged that when the complainant and his mother were in the partnership firm of the company up to 1983, they had executed a power of attorney in favour of accused No.1 Bastimal, however, the said power of attorney came to an end with the dissolution of the partnership firm in the year 1983 and on account of death of his mother but Bastimal had entered into a criminal conspiracy with other persons including the petitioner-Pradeep Kumar and sold the land of the company while using the said power of attorney, which was in more existence after dissolution of the partnership firm. It is further alleged in the FIR that after dissolution of the partnership firm, all the property of the said firm merged into the company and was mortgaged with the Bank for obtaining loans, and accused No.1 Bastimal fraudulently sold the land of the company by using the said power of attorney, which was non-existent and, therefore, has committed the offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. In the complaint, it is alleged that the said offences were committed by Bastimal after entering into a criminal conspiracy with the persons, who have purchased the land including the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned FIR while contending that from bare reading of the contents of the FIR, no offence against the petitioner is made out. The land of the company was sold by Bastimal as being the Director of the company and while selling the said land, he referred to the power of attorney executed by the complainant in the year 1980. The land of the company was sold by Bastimal as being the Director of the company and while selling the said land, he referred to the power of attorney executed by the complainant in the year 1980. It is also contended that the petitioner was not aware about the dissolution of the partnership firm or about the non-existence of the power of attorney executed by the complainant-respondent No.2 and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for commission of any crime as alleged in the impugned FIR. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is bonafide purchaser and has no idea about the business transactions or relations between the respondent No.2 and the main accused Bastimal and, therefore, the impugned FIR qua the petitioner may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer of the petitioner and contended that from the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, it is clear that the petitioner has entered into a criminal conspiracy with the main accused- Bastimal and purchased the property of the company using the non-existent power of attorney of the respondent No.2. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned FIR. 6. The main allegation levelled in the impugned FIR is against accused-Bastimal. It is specifically contended that the power of attorney executed by the respondent No.2 and his mother in favour of Bastimal had automatically cancelled or come to an end on 04.11.1983 and Bastimal was not authorised to sell the land of the company on the basis of the said power of attorney. It is also contended that the main accused Bastimal was aware about the fact that the land of the company is mortgaged with the Bank and he was not authorised to sell the said property of the company but despite knowing this fact, he sold the property of the company unauthorisedly to other accused-persons including the petitioner by entering into a criminal conspiracy with them. In the FIR, it has nowhere been stated that the petitioner was aware about the dissolution of the partnership firm or cancellation of the power of attorney executed by the complainant and his mother. In the FIR, it has nowhere been stated that the petitioner was aware about the dissolution of the partnership firm or cancellation of the power of attorney executed by the complainant and his mother. Only vague allegation is levelled that the petitioner and other persons have entered into a criminal conspiracy with main accused Bastimal to purchase the land of the company. 7. The petitioner along with other persons has purchased the property of the company from Bastimal and in the absence of specific allegation to the effect that the petitioner was having knowledge about the dissolution of the partnership firm, cancellation of the power of attorney or was aware that the property of the company, which he is going to purchase is mortgaged with the bank, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further, it cannot be assumed that despite knowing the fact that the property is mortgaged with a bank, any person will purchase such property by paying consideration. 8. This Court is of the opinion that from bare reading of the contents of the FIR, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner of cheating or preparation of forged documents and, therefore, it is a fit case, wherein inherent powers under section 482 Cr.PC can be exercised for quashing the FIR. 9. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.215/2008 lodged at Police Station, Degana, District Nagaur qua the petitioner is hereby quashed. Stay petition stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******