Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1358 (RAJ)

Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners herein seeking quashing of FIR No.324/2017 registered at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sriganganagar for offences under Sections 420 & 120B IPC. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the misc. petition are noted hereinbelow:- 3. The respondent-complainant filed the FIR aforestated through a complaint in the court of ACJM, Sadulshahar in the year 2017 alleging therein that he was a resident of Village Hakmabad, District Sadulshahar. In the year 1993, he started looking out for a piece of agricultural land. He had instructed Nanakram and Bhagirath in this regard. He alleged that when the accused persons came to know of the complainant's plan, they hatched a conspiracy and approached the complainant at his house in Hakmabad with certain property documents and gave him an inducement that they had come to know from Nanakram and Bhagirath regarding the complainant's intent to buy a piece of land. The accused Ramswaroop allegedly told the complainant that Netram owned some land in Chak No.5 NGM Poogal. Netram had expired and that Smt. Harkori was possessing succession certificates etc. It was stated that the accused allegedly gave an allurement to the complainant that Smt. Harkori was in dire need of money for the education of her children and thus, she would sell the land to the complainant at a cheap rate. Relevant title documents were provided to the complainant. In the month of January, 1994, the complainant was shown the land and on 21.01.1994, he gave a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused Ramswaroop and Pana S/o Shri Netram Dhanak in presence of the witnesses Bhagirath, Nanakram and Dharamdas and an agreement was executed in his favour and was got notarized. A power of attorney was also executed in favour of the complainant. The complainant alleged that the accused did not have a genuine intention of transferring the land to him. He gave further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each in the years 1996 and 1998 and Rs.1,25,000/- in the year 2004 to the accused Ramswaroop and Harkori. The complainant was assured that these amounts were being used to pay off the installments of the land and that registered sale deed would be executed as and when the complainant desired. He gave further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each in the years 1996 and 1998 and Rs.1,25,000/- in the year 2004 to the accused Ramswaroop and Harkori. The complainant was assured that these amounts were being used to pay off the installments of the land and that registered sale deed would be executed as and when the complainant desired. On 16.03.2007, the accused Ramswaroop, Harkori and Jaiveer approached the complainant at Hakmabad pleading that someone in their family had expired and demanded more money. The complainant stated that he had already given significant amount for purchase of the land and hence, a registered sale deed should be executed in his favour. He bluntly refused to give any more money to the accused unless they provide receipts etc. towards clearance of the installments. In the year 2009, the complainant invested money on improving the land and started cultivating the same. In the year 2012, the accused Ramswaroop and Harkori came to Hakmabad on which, the complainant requested them to execute the registered sale deed. However, the accused had developed a fraudulent intention and they demanded more money and threatened that the registered sale deed would be executed only if an additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to them. The complainant convened a Panchayat and an additional amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was paid to Harkori in the month of December, 2012. The complainant went to Pugal and made inquiries on which he came to know that the installments of the land were due and the allotment would be cancelled if the same were not paid. The complainant realized that he had been cheated by the accused persons as, the deceased Netram had other successors as well and accused concealed this important fact while entering into the agreement with the complainant. A panchayat was convened and on saying of the mediators, he paid an additional amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the accused on receiving an assurance that registered sale deed would be executed in his favour. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused fraudulently induced the complainant to part with a huge amount of Rs.22,50,000/- without ever intending to transfer the land. On 09.05.2017, a fresh agreement was executed in favour of the complainant with the written promise to get the No Objections from other legal heirs. The accused managed to get the mutation of the land carried out in their favour. On 09.05.2017, a fresh agreement was executed in favour of the complainant with the written promise to get the No Objections from other legal heirs. The accused managed to get the mutation of the land carried out in their favour. The complainant was desirous of having the registered sale deed executed in favour of his wife Smt. Sitokaur. He called the accused persons to the Sub-Registrar Office, Bikaner but the accused bluntly refused to honour the agreement upon which the complainant was compelled to lodge the complaint. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR (No.324/2017) came to be lodged for the offences under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC and investigation was commenced. 4. The Investigating Officer conducted thorough investigation into the matter and came to a conclusion that all the legal heirs of Netram were ready and willing to transfer the agricultural land to the complainant and that the accused never refused to honour the agreement. The land in question was in possession of with Mohar Singh since the year 1994. It was specifically recorded in the agreement that Harkori would get the land transferred to the complainant after getting the mutation entries recorded in the names of all the legal heirs and thus, no fraudulent inducement was given to the complainant while entering the agreement. The power of attorney of the land in question had been given to Mohar Singh who was empowered to use the same and to get the registered sale deed executed. The IO also found that no part of cause of action took place in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Lalgarh Jatan and also that no offence was made out from the allegations set out in the complaint. A negative final report came to be submitted in the court concerned with these conclusions on 29.06.2018. The ACJM, Sadulshahar directed reinvestigation on which the file has been reopened. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned FIR and the documents annexed with this petition. 6. It may be stated here that the complainant clearly alleged in the FIR/complaint that original agreement was executed in the year 1994. The ACJM, Sadulshahar directed reinvestigation on which the file has been reopened. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned FIR and the documents annexed with this petition. 6. It may be stated here that the complainant clearly alleged in the FIR/complaint that original agreement was executed in the year 1994. On going through the agreement, it is clear that the sellers clearly mentioned therein that the registered sale deed would be got executed after the relevant mutation entries were made in favour of the accused persons and on payment of the balance consideration. The complainant admitted in his FIR that revenue entries were made somewhere in the year 2017 and immediately thereafter the accused executed a fresh agreement in his favour. In this background, even if the allegations of the complainant are considered to be true on the face of record, no prima facie offence whatsoever can be said to made out against the accused persons. Manifestly, no concealment was made by the accused while executing the agreement and thus, the element of fraudulent inducement is totally lacking in the case. If at all, the complainant was aggrieved of the non-performance of the contract by the accused persons, he could have approached the civil court for seeking specific performance thereof. By no stretch of imagination can the Court be satisfied that the impugned FIR discloses ingredients of cognizable offences. The complainant has already filed a revenue suit against the accused persons before the SDM, Pugal. He is in possession of the land in question. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that upon a perusal of the impugned FIR and material collected by the IO, prima facie ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out and that the dispute inter se between the parties is purely of civil nature. 7. As an upshot of above discussion, I am of the opinion that continuation of the investigation of the impugned FIR would be nothing short of gross abuse of process of law. Hence, the misc petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.324/2017 registered at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan for the offences under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC and all further proceedings sought to be taken in consequence thereof are hereby quashed.