Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1615 (RAJ)

SHYAM SUNDER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-07-21

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 in the matter of quashment of FIR No.101/2016 PS Nohar, District Hanumangarh, registered for the offence under Sections 120-B, 418, 420, 423, 464, 471, 447 & 427 of IPC against the petitioner and others. 2. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant on 24.04.2015 to sell out the land of Khasra No.134/1, measuring 1.0120 hectare to the extent of his 2/8 share for consideration the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and accordingly he paid a sum or Sr. 1,70,000/- to the petitioner as a token money and the petitioner handed over the possession of the land to him. It is alleged in the complaint that the agreement to sale which was registered in favour of the complainant on 12.09.2015 was not executed by the present petitioner. It is further alleged that he did not return the amount which was taken by him as advance and also he further sold the same land to one Anju Devi despite the fact that he was under legal obligation to honour the sale agreement. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that status report is exact version of the aforementioned facts whereby the petitioner was under a legal obligation arising out of agreement to sale in favour of the complainant but failed to honour the agreement and further sold the land to one Anju Devi. The total investigation made by the investigating authority is that there was an agreement to sale which was not honoured by the petitioner and instead of honouring the execution the agreement to sale further sold the land. 4. In similar matter considering the precedent law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court has passed the following judgment in Gopal Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.658/2015) decided on 19.07.2017. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record as well as the status report filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, this court is of the opinion that the totality of the fact is that the agreement to sale was there which was not honoured by the present petitioner and hence, the FIR is being used only as a mode to execute the agreement in question. The FIR or the investigation nowhere points out any other fact whatsoever other than the deviation from the agreement to sale by the petitioner. On the face of it, the FIR does not constitute the offence under Sections 120-B, 418, 420, 423, 464, 471, 447 & 427 IPC and it is clear from the bare reading of the FIR that it is mere a failure of execution of an agreement to sale. 6. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.101/2016 registered at Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh and all consequential proceedings is hereby quashed and set aside.