Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 427 (RAJ)

Ajay Kalla v. State of Rajasthan

2018-02-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material on record. 2. By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 413/2016 registered at P.S. Udaimandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Kotwani vehemently urged that as a matter of fact the so called agreement on the strength whereof the F.I.R. has been filed is a fabricated one. The petitioner as a matter of fact took some loan from the complainant and for repayment thereof two cheques and some blank papers were given to him. The cheques could not be honoured and the complainant has initiated proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. Simultaneously, he misused the blank papers lying with him to create the fabricated agreement and lodged the frivolous F.I.R. on the basis thereof. On these grounds he implores the Court to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned P.P. and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They urged that the petitioner knowingly and consciously executed the agreement in favour of the petitioner knowing that the land which he was selling did not belong to him. This fact has been duly verified by the I.O. They thus crave dismissal of the misc. petition. 5. Having appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage it would not be appropriate to hold that the impugned F.I.R. does not disclose requisite elements of cognizable offences. Ex-facie there is ample material available on record to show that the petitioner executed agreement to sale of the disputed chunk of land in favour of the complainant knowing very well that he did not own the same. 6. Thus, the instant misc. petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.