Navin Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Sanwar Mal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through PP
2017-01-09
PANKAJ BHANDARI
body2017
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 365/2007 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant's wife on 22.01.2007. The petitioner's wife further executed the sale deed on 05.07.2007 and transferred the said land in favour of Jan Chetna Samiti. A complaint was filed by the complainant, who happens to be the husband on 08.10.2007. The complaint was referred to the police and an FIR was lodged on 11.12.2007. 3. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that no offence is made out from bare perusal of the FIR. No fact was concealed from the purchaser. It is also contended that the complainant has no right to approach the High Court. It is also contended that initially, the police submitted a negative final report on 21.12.2007, but on persuasion of the complainant, the matter was re-opened. It is further contended that after the sale deed was executed, mutation was entered in name of the complainant's wife and when the complainant's wife sold the said land to Jan Chetna Samiti through Smt. Santosh Kulhari, the mutation was entered in favour of Jan Chetna Samiti. Thus, no offence whatsoever has been committed by the present petitioner. 4. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. His contention is that a loss of Rs. 51,000/- has occasioned to the complainant's wife, since disputes pertaining to the said property were pending. It is also contended that the petitioner did not inform the complainant's wife about the pending disputes, which tantamounts to the offence of cheating. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have also perused the FIR as well as the documents, that is, the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant's wife, sale deed executed by the complainant's wife in favour of Jan Chetna Samiti and the proceedings of mutation. 6. It is pertinent to note that the property was purchased by the complainant's wife by registered sale deed on 22.01.2007. The sale amount as mentioned in the sale deed is Rs. 45,000/-. The same property was thereafter sold by the complainant's wife to Jan Chetna Samiti for Rs. 8,00,000/- on 05.07.2007.
6. It is pertinent to note that the property was purchased by the complainant's wife by registered sale deed on 22.01.2007. The sale amount as mentioned in the sale deed is Rs. 45,000/-. The same property was thereafter sold by the complainant's wife to Jan Chetna Samiti for Rs. 8,00,000/- on 05.07.2007. Though it is mentioned by the complainant that in fact Rs. 8,51,000/- was paid to the petitioner, but the Court is of the view that what is mentioned as the sale price in the document is to be taken note of. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that a loss of Rs. 51,000/- was occasioned to the complainant's wife has no force. Even otherwise in the sale deed Annexure-1, there is no mention about pendency of the litigation, rather it is mentioned that if any dispute arises with relation to the ownership right of the property, the petitioner would be responsible to make good the loss occasioned to the complainant's wife. 7. Mere pendency of the dispute cannot be considered to be a misrepresentation by the petitioner. Further since the complainant's wife has sold the property within six months of its purchase, the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any merit. Thus, no offence under Sections 420, 406, 411, 465, 467 and 468 IPC is made out. The property was mutated in favour of the complainant's wife and thereafter in favour of the purchaser- Jan Chetna Samiti, which goes to show that the title was clear. The misc. petition therefore deserves to be allowed. 8. Consequently, the present misc. petition is allowed and FIR No. 365/2007 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu for offences under Sections 420, 406, 411, 465, 467 and 468 IPC is hereby quashed. The stay application also stands disposed.