Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 481 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Lathi (rathi) v. State of Rajasthan

2018-02-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard 2. These two misc. petitions have been preferred by the accused petitioners Dharmendra and Surendra Singh under section 482 Cr.P.c., 1973 with a prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 458/2016 registered at P.S. Subhash Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. 3. The facts in brief are that the complainant claims to have executed registered sale deeds of multiple agricultural plots in favour of the accused petitioners in the year 2015. Though it was mentioned in the registered documents that the entire sale consideration was paid at the time of the execution of the registered sale deeds but in the F.I.R., the complainant has set up a contrary plea that as a matter of fact the accused did not pay full sale consideration to him while getting the sale deeds registered and certain other oral and written stipulations and conditions were agreed to by the parties which the accused failed to fulfill. He further alleged that the accused gave some cheques to the complainant for the balance consideration amount which were dishonoured upon being presented in the bank. As per the complainant, the accused gave a totally fraudulent inducement to the complainant for getting the registered sale deeds executed. Though the F.I.R. was filed against numerous other persons but after concluding investigation, the I.O. found only the present petitioners responsible for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. The I.O. after concluding investigation has recorded following findings:- 1. That the complainant Babu Ram Bansal divided agricultural land of his wife Kiran admeasuring 2 bighas 5 biswas located in Khasra No. 301 at village Atun Bhilwara into plots and he himself become the power of attorney for transacting these plots. The petitioner Surendera Singh is a property dealer. He gained confidence of the complainant by getting some of these plots sold to different parties. Later on Surendra Singh developed a fraudulent intention and introduced him to Dharmendra Lathi (petitioner in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 3872/2016) who was involved in business of gold and silver. The complainant was assured that Dharmendra Lathi would construct houses on the plots and in furtherance this fraudulent design the complainant was made to execute registered sale deeds of plots no. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 in favour of Dharmendra Lathi on 22.4.2015 without total consideration amount being paid. The complainant was assured that Dharmendra Lathi would construct houses on the plots and in furtherance this fraudulent design the complainant was made to execute registered sale deeds of plots no. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 in favour of Dharmendra Lathi on 22.4.2015 without total consideration amount being paid. After execution of the registered sale deeds the complainant was made to execute another agreement dated 16.5.2015 on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- in which it was stipulated that the complainant had received a sum of Rs. 5 lacs at the time of execution of the sale deeds of these five plots and towards the remaining consideration a cheque of Rs. 17 lacs was being given by Surendra Singh to the complainant. The I.O. thus concluded that only a part payment of the consideration was made to the complainant towards sale of plots made in favour of Dharmendra Lathi. Though the transaction was made by Dharmendra Lathi but the cheque was given by Surendra Singh. 2. That the complainant also executed registered sale deeds of plot no. 25 to 31 in favour of Surendra Singh on 14.5.2015 without the total consideration being paid. The consideration was settled at Rs. 30,80,000/- Out of this amount, the accused paid Rs. 5,80,000/- and the balance sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was secured by a cheque for which an agreement was executed on 16.5.2015 on a stamp paper worth Rs. 100/- . The I.O. also found that as per these agreements executed interse between the parties, it was agreed that the registered sale deed would remain with the complainant till the consideration amount was cleared off but Surendra Singh fradulently induced the complainant and took away the registered sale deeds. Thereafter he sold the plots to one Satya Narain Bairwa. The cheques provided by Surendra Singh were dishonoured upon presentation in the bank. 4. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned F.I.R. as well as the case diary, it is clear that the entire dispute is purely of a civil nature. Looking to the possibility of contemporary proceedings being prejudiced, this Court refrains from commenting on veracity of complainant's allegation that the accused did not make payment of total consideration amount at the time of execution of the registered sale deeds even though the documents contain recitals to this effect. Looking to the possibility of contemporary proceedings being prejudiced, this Court refrains from commenting on veracity of complainant's allegation that the accused did not make payment of total consideration amount at the time of execution of the registered sale deeds even though the documents contain recitals to this effect. Though totally contrary to the recitals made in the sale deeds, even if for argument's sake, the complainant's allegation that the accused managed to get the registered sale deeds executed without making payment of complete sale consideration then too, it cannot be inferred that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right at the time of inception of the contract. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions rendered by Hon"ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court that for invoking the offence of fraud and cheating the prosecution has to establish that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right at the time of inception of the contract. If the complainant's allegations indicate that the fraudulent intention was developed at a later stage, the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be applied. It is an admitted case of the complainant that there was no stipulation whatsoever in the contract that any part of the consideration amount was unpaid. The so called agreements written on stamp papers of Rs. 100/- were provided subsequently and in these agreements it was mentioned part consideration had been paid to the complainant towards the disputed sale deeds and the balance was payable later on. The balance consideration was allegedly secured by the cheques provided to the complainant by Surendra Singh. These cheques were dishonoured upon being presented. In this background, there is ample material to satisfy the Court that by no stretch of imagination can it be inferred that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right at the time of enterting into the contract. If at all, the accused intended to deprive the complainant of the balance consideration amount, then they could have easily refused to sign the subsequent agreements prepared on Rs. 100/- stamps (as claimed by the complainant). The fact that the complainant has taken recourse of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the accused Surendra Singh regarding the bounced cheques also fortifies this conclusion. 100/- stamps (as claimed by the complainant). The fact that the complainant has taken recourse of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the accused Surendra Singh regarding the bounced cheques also fortifies this conclusion. Hence, it is the firm opinion of this Court that ingredients of the offences alleged are not even remotely made out from the highest and admitted allegations of the complainant as set out in the impugned F.I.R. and the material collected by the I.O. till date. 5. In view of the above discussion, the misc. petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The F.I.R. No. 458/2016 registered at P.S. Subhash Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof against the accused petitioners are hereby quashed.