Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1686 (RAJ)

Vijender Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-09

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.04/2018 of Police Station Basni, District Jodhpur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 447 of IPC. 2. The above referred FIR was lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, wherein it is alleged that the accused petitioner along with his father Ummed Singh had approached the complainant for selling the plot No.30 situated in Second Scheme Karni Nagar, Kuri Bhagtasani. The petitioner being the owner of the plot assured the complainant that the plot is free from all encumbrances. It is stated in the FIR that the complainant was agreed to purchase the plot for consideration of Rs. 3,33,000/- and in this respect, a sale deed agreement was executed on 25.08.2001, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- has been delivered to the petitioner. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that though the complainant has requested the petitioner to get the sale deed of the plot in question registered before the Sub-Registrar on many occasions and the petitioner and his father had assured him that they will get the sale deed registered very soon. It is alleged that ultimately in the year 2017, the petitioner refused to get the sale deed registered of the plot in question. 4. It is also alleged in the FIR that in the meantime, in the year 2016, a false case was registered at the instance of father of the petitioner against the respondent No.2, however, in the said FIR, the police have filed a negative final report and the same has been accepted by the concerned court. It is further alleged in the impugned FIR that the petitioner, despite knowing the fact that he has already sold the plot in question to the complainant way back in the year 2000, has executed a power of attorney in favour of his father on 28.06.20116 and father of the petitioner, on the strength of the said power of attorney, has forcibly entered into the plot in question on 26.12.2017 and destroyed the stone marks situated on the plot and tried to get the possession of the plot in question illegally. 5. 5. After registration of the impugned FIR, the police started investigation and during the course of investigation, interrogated several persons and now the investigation has been almost completed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report, wherein it is mentioned that the police after interrogating the witnesses as well the petitioner have come to the conclusion that the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 447 and 120-B of IPC is made out against the petitioner and his father. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact, from a bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it is clear that no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is further argued that sum and substance of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner is that the petitioner has received the consideration amount pursuant to the agreement executed in the year 2001 but later on has refused to get the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant. It is argued that complainant has not filed any suit for specific performance within limitation and now when the limitation for filing the said suit is over, this criminal complaint has been filed while giving criminal colour to a civil dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is purely of civil nature and no offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating is made out against the petitioner or any other person. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Dalip Kaur and Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr., (2009) AIR SC 3191 and Prem Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr, (2017) CriLJ 744 and this Court in Gopal Singh & Ors vs. State & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.658/2015) decided on 19.07.2017. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed this petition and argued that from the allegation contained in the impugned FIR, prima facie case for commission of offence of breach of trust and cheating is made out against the petitioner and his father, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed this petition and argued that from the allegation contained in the impugned FIR, prima facie case for commission of offence of breach of trust and cheating is made out against the petitioner and his father, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the police during the course of investigation have collected the material which suggests that the petitioner has committed offence of breach of trust and cheating with the respondent No.2 because though the plot in question was sold way back in year 2001 to the respondent No.2 through agreement to sell but later on when the petitioner has not executed any registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2, they with intention to grab the plot in question had lodged a false FIR against the respondent No.2. It is also argued that the evidence of this effect is available on record which suggests that the petitioner and his father had intention to cheat the respondent No.2 since beginning and, therefore, it cannot be said that no case for commission of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that as a matter of fact, in the impugned FIR, investigation has almost completed and looking to this fact alone, no case for interference is made out. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Teeja Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 15 SCC 221 and has argued that in the above referred judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that where the investigation is going on, it is not appropriate for the High Court to interfere in the investigation conducted by the police as it will amount to gross abuse of the process of law. On the strength of the above arguments, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have prayed for dismissal of the criminal misc. petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the impugned FIR and the relevant material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR do constitute a prime facie offence against the petitioner, hence, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed. 12. petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the impugned FIR and the relevant material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR do constitute a prime facie offence against the petitioner, hence, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed. 12. So far as regarding the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is purely of civil nature is not appealing to this Court at this stage. Whether the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is of civil nature or not can only be ascertained after going through the evidence of the parties, which is to be laid before the trial court. 13. The judgments on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance are quite distinguishable on the facts and circumstances, therefore, are of no help to the petitioner. 14. It is noticed that the investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR has already been completed and the police are at the verge of filing final conclusion before the concerned Magistrate, hence, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Teeja Devi , the investigation cannot be interfered at this stage. 15. Resultantly, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the High Court should exercise its extra-ordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. In view of the above discussion, this criminal misc. petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.