Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2400 (RAJ)

Pankaj Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-08

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 118/2013, registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that an agreement to sale was executed way back on 11.11.1989 by the complainant in favour of the petitioner, who was a minor on the date of the agreement to sale. It is contended that complainant filed a civil suit for cancellation of patta issued by the petitioner in furtherance agreement dated 11.11.2018 and for mesne profit and injunction which suit was dismissed by the trial Court. It is contended that petitioner on the basis of agreement to sale applied to the authorities and the patta of the property was issued in his favour. It is contended that once the Civil Court has dismissed the suit, continuation of investigation by the Police has caused irreparable loss to the petitioner and would tantamount to abuse of process of Court. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335", wherein the Apex Court has held that when proceedings are initiated mala fide with a malicious intent, and FIR does not disclose commission of offence, Courts are competent to quash the same under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was held that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, proceedings can be quashed by the Court under the inherent powers. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on "Videocon Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2016) 12 SCC 315 " and "Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal 2011 CRI.L.J. 1747". 5. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that the complainant was residing at Jharkhand and his property was looked after by his brother and a forged agreement to sale was prepared by the petitioner on a back date. 5. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that the complainant was residing at Jharkhand and his property was looked after by his brother and a forged agreement to sale was prepared by the petitioner on a back date. Police has investigated the case and has come to the conclusion that there were no signs on the stamp paper, there was no signature of notary public and stamp vendor on stamp paper from where the stamp paper was stated to have been purchased was also not in existence. It is argued that criminal proceedings can continue even if the complainant has failed in the civil suit. It is contended that appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree which is pending before the High Court. 6. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the FIR. 7. As per the FIR, petitioner has prepared a forged agreement to sale on a back date and on the basis of agreement to sale has got patta issued from the authorities. Petitioner happens to be nephew of respondent-complainant. Respondent-complainant was staying at Jharkhand and his property was being looked after by his brother. FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Police after due investigation has probed in the matter and has come to the conclusion that agreement to sale was executed on Rs. 5 stamp paper. There were no signs on the stamp paper. It was not bearing the signatures of the notary public and the stamp vendor was not in existence. Police has come to the conclusion that offence is made out against the petitioner. 8. Apex Court in "Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2018 (3) SCC Page 106." has held that the High Court at this stage could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences and such job is vested with the Investigating Authority. The Apex Court further observed that if the FIR discloses prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, High Court should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code. 9. The Apex Court further observed that if the FIR discloses prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, High Court should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code. 9. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that civil suit filed by the complainant stands dismissed, hence continuation of criminal proceedings would result in abuse of process of Court and the judgment of Videocon Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Supra) relied on by the counsel for the petitioner for this purpose would not apply to the facts of the present case for the very reason that Videocon Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Supra), the decisions of the tribunal were not under challenge, whereas the decree passed by the court below dismissing the suit of the complainant is under challenge and it is the job of the Investigating Officer to ascertain whether infact the agreement to sale was forged by the complainant back dated and he was prepared to grab the property belonging to the complainant. Since FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, merely because civil suit has been dismissed, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. More particularly when appeal against the dismissal of the suit is pending before the Court and further because Police after investigation has come to the conclusion that the first page of the agreement to sale which is on a stamp of Rs. 5 does not bear the signatures of the complainant. There are no signatures of notary public and the stamp vendor is not traceable, misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR is accordingly dismissed. 10. Stay application stands disposed.