Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 129 (RAJ)

Prem Bhatia v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-15

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 189/2014 of Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 had submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur stating that he is owner of the property 'Pritam Bhawan' situated opposite Pratap School, M.G.H. Road, Jodhpur. It is contended by the complainant that he purchased the said property from its owners through their power of attorney on 29.05.2013 for a consideration of Rs. 3,21,00,000/-. It is further stated by the complainant that in relation to the said property, he included two partners with him and thereafter, he and his partners entered into an agreement with the petitioner - Prem Bhatia, Jugal Kishore Gehlot, Manoj Tatia and Babulal for vacating the first floor of the said property, which was rented to them by the previous owners, for Rs. 90,00,000/-. The said agreement contains the signatures of the complainant, his partners, petitioner, Jugal Kishore and Manoj Tatia. Later on, two persons viz. Manoj Tatia and Babulal offered to purchase two rooms, which were in their possession and the complainant and his partners had accepted that offer. Thereafter, the complainant and his partners had paid Rs. 67,50,000/- to the petitioner and Jugal Kishore for vacating seven rooms of the said property and thereafter on 06.03.2014, the petitioner and Jugal Kishore handed over the symbolic possession of the seven rooms to him, however, the petitioner sought time to vacate room No. 3, which the complainant had agreed. It is further contended by the complainant that for vacating seven rooms, a sum of Rs. 67,50,000/- was given to the petitioner in front of Manoj Tatia, Babulal, Anand Arora, Jugal Kishore, Mohd. Ayub Gauri and 3-4 persons and the time for vacating the room No. 3 was also given in front of those persons. It is contended that in relation to that, an agreement dated 06.03.2014 was also executed. 67,50,000/- was given to the petitioner in front of Manoj Tatia, Babulal, Anand Arora, Jugal Kishore, Mohd. Ayub Gauri and 3-4 persons and the time for vacating the room No. 3 was also given in front of those persons. It is contended that in relation to that, an agreement dated 06.03.2014 was also executed. The complainant has further contended that the petitioner had asked for original agreement dated 06.03.2014 for the purpose of getting it photo copied and in good belief, the complainant gave the same to him, which he returned to him after some time and the complainant got the said agreement notarized and thereafter kept in his custody without looking into it. It is further contended that after some time when the complainant had asked the petitioner to vacate room No. 3, he made certain excuses and ultimately told him that he had already given him Rs. 7,50,000/-, which he had received in lieu of vacating the room No. 3 and, therefore, he would not vacate the room No. 3. Upon insisting, the petitioner disclosed that in the agreement dated 06.03.2014, a receipt of Rs. 7,50,000/- was given by partner of the complainant Sanjay Singhvi. The complainant has further alleged in the complaint that as a matter of fact no such receipt was given by Sanjay Singhvi at any point of time and the petitioner himself scribed the said receipt in his own writing on the original agreement dated 06.03.2014. It is also alleged that the petitioner cheated the complainant, and despite having received the amount for vacating the room No. 3 of the disputed property, he refused to vacate the said room. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that bare reading of the impugned FIR does not disclose any offence under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress the Court that as a matter of fact Dhanpat Raj Mehta, who sold the disputed property to the complainant and his partners, had no authority to sell the property on behalf of one of the original owners. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner was the tenant of Madhu Mehta and the property was not sold by her at any point of time to Dhanpat Raj Mehta, from whom, the complainant along with his partners had purchased the same. 4. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner was the tenant of Madhu Mehta and the property was not sold by her at any point of time to Dhanpat Raj Mehta, from whom, the complainant along with his partners had purchased the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certain documents pertaining to the ownership of previous owner and the agreement executed between him and Madhu Mehta. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as a matter of fact, Dhanpat Raj Mehta had impersonated Madhu Mehta as his wife and the power of attorney issued in favour of him by Madhu Mehta, on the basis of which he sold the property to the complainant, is also forged 5. Upon a specific query put by this Court whether the petitioner ever filed any complaint regarding impersonating Madhu Mehta by Dhanpat Raj Mehta, the counsel for the petitioner has frankly admitted that a criminal complaint was filed in respect of the above allegation but the police had filed negative final report in the said complaint, however, the petitioner has filed a protest petition against the negative final report filed by the police. 6. Upon another specific query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioner had executed an agreement on 09.01.2014 with the complainant and his partners for vacating the rooms for an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/-. 7. This petition is pending since 2014 and written submissions are filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is mentioned that the investigation in relation to the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR has already been completed and the police have found prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC while concluding that the petitioner had executed an agreement on 09.01.2014 with the complainant and his partners for vacating rooms of the disputed property and received a handsome amount for the same but later on he refused to do so, though, he had handed over some of the rooms to the complainant but refused to vacate the room No. 3. 8. 8. In the factual report dated 09.01.2019 presented by learned Public Prosecutor, it is mentioned that the petitioner is also guilty of scribing receipt in the name of one of the partners of the complainant of receiving Rs. 7,50,000/-, which were given to him for vacating the room No. 3. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336 , Suneet Gupta vs. Anil Triloknath Sharma & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 670 , Dr Monica Kumar & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 781 , Rajeswar Tiwari & Ors. vs. Nanda Kishore Roy, (2010) 8 SCC 442 and Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 293 and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in these decisions that if the complaint or contents of the FIR do not disclose any offence, the FIR is liable to be quashed. It is also argued that in the above referred judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that when the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, the FIR is liable to be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that prima facie the contents of the complaint/FIR filed by the complainant do constitute an offence and therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on the written submissions filed on behalf of the State in response to this criminal misc. petition. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the contents of the FIR, I am of the opinion that the contents of the impugned FIR do constitute a prima facie offence against the petitioner. 12. In the impugned FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant and his partners for vacating the disputed rooms and received a handsome amount in lieu thereof but later on he refused to vacate one of the rooms though handed over the possession of some of the rooms. 13. As stated earlier, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the fact that he entered into an agreement with the complainant for vacating all the rooms. 14. 13. As stated earlier, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the fact that he entered into an agreement with the complainant for vacating all the rooms. 14. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that the person, who sold the disputed property to the complainant, was not competent to do so on behalf of the real owner is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that this is the defence of the petitioner, which cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. 15. So far as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments is concerned, there is no dispute about the same but once the Court comes to the conclusion that the contents of the FIR do constitute an offence, then the FIR cannot be quashed. 16. It is noticed that the police have already concluded the investigation and found involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.