Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 694 (RAJ)

Rakesh Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-03-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the impugned FIR and the case diary. 2. The accused petitioner Rakesh Kumar S/o Nanak Chand has approached this court by way of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR No. 169/2016 registered at the Police Station Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar. The said FIR was lodged at the instance of the respondent No.2, complainant Sukhjinder Singh, on 02.08.2016 alleging inter alia that he was desirous of starting a business at Sri Ganganagar and thus, was on look out for a shop. He met a property dealer named Krishna Kumar, who showed him various properties. The complainant came across the shop No.76 located in the Purani Dhan Mandi, Sri Ganganagar ad measuring 11.9' x 10.9', which was owned by the petitioner Rakesh Kumar. The complainant was told that Rakesh Kumar was desirous of selling the shop. The complainant talked to Rakesh Kumar and he expressed that he was desirous of buying his shop. Talks between the complainant and the petitioner continued. Ultimately, the accused came down to the house of the complainant at Padampur for negotiations and the accused offered to sell his shop to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.35 lacs. The complainant agreed to the said proposal and an agreement in writing was executed between the complainant and the petitioner on 15.12.2014 at the house of the complainant in the presence of the dealer Krishna Kumar and one Prashant Sharma. A sum of Rs.25 lacs was paid as advance by the complainant to the accused petitioner and the remainder of Rs.l0 lacs was agreed to be paid on 15.06.2016, on which date, the registered sale deed was to be executed. The complainant called the accused a few days before 15.06.2016 and apprised him that the registry of the shop had to be executed on that day. The accused advised him to reach the Sub Registrar's office on 15.06.2016 with the remaining amount so that the procedure for registry could be carried out. The complainant reached the office of the Sub Registrar on 15.06.2016 as scheduled, but the petitioner did not reach there. The complainant tried to contact the petitioner, but he avoided all his attempts. The accused advised him to reach the Sub Registrar's office on 15.06.2016 with the remaining amount so that the procedure for registry could be carried out. The complainant reached the office of the Sub Registrar on 15.06.2016 as scheduled, but the petitioner did not reach there. The complainant tried to contact the petitioner, but he avoided all his attempts. Finally the complainant could somehow trace out the petitioner on 16.06.2016, but he bluntly refused to honour the agreement and told that he was not desirous of executing the registered sale deed. 3. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 169/2016 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and investigation commenced. 4. The petitioner has now approached this court by way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has advanced the following contentions for seeking quashing of the FIR: - 1. that the allegations set out in the FIR are patently false and fabricated; 2. that the claim of the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs.25 lacs in cash to the accused petitioner is unbelievable; 3. that the shop is located at Sri Ganganagar, whereas the FIR was intentionally filed at Padampur so as to misuse the police process; 4. that the accused petitioner does not know the complainant and had never met him before and thus, there was no reason for the prosecution to happen; 5. that some other persons have launched false prosecution against the petitioner and his cheques are being misused. 6. that the agreement in question is fabricated in furtherance of a consorted design to defraud the petitioner; 7. that even if the allegations set out in the FIR are accepted to be true on the face of the record, the same do not disclose any offence whatsoever; 8. that the actual value of the shop is more than Rs.1.5 crore and the petitioner has taken a loan of this sum from Axis Bank and thus, it cannot be believed that he would agree to sell the same for a paltry sum of Rs.35 lacs. 6. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner sought quashing of the impugned FIR. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. 6. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner sought quashing of the impugned FIR. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Jain and pointed out that the disputed agreement was executed at Padampur. The agreement was signed by the petitioner in full possession of his senses. He duped the complainant for entering into the agreement by portraying that the shop was free from all encumbrances, whereas the accused had taken a loan of Rs.1.5 crore by mortgaging the shop with Axis Bank on 14.05.2014. This material fact was intentionally concealed from the complainant, who was fraudulently induced by the accused to part with a huge sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lacs). They further submitted that even after entering into the agreement with the complainant, the accused has further sold the shop to one Satendra Kumar, who filed the FIR No.629/2016 at the Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar against the petitioner, who filed a miscellaneous petition No.417/2017 for quashing of the said FIR, but the said petition has been dismissed by this court by order dated 14.02.2017. On these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant urged that at this stage, it cannot be held that the impugned FIR and the material collected so far by the Investigating Officer does not disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences and hence, this court should refrain from interfering therein. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 9. Suffice it to say that it is a pertinent allegation of the complainant that the accused-petitioner offered to sell his shop to him for a consideration of Rs.35 lacs. The complainant has clearly alleged that the agreement was executed on 15.12.2014 at Padampur. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a signatory to the agreement as the seller. It is categorically mentioned in this agreement that the shop in question was totally free from all encumbrances; no loan etc. was existing thereupon. Whereas, the Investigating Officer has collected positive evidence to show that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.1.5 crore by mortgaging the shop in question with Axis Bank on 14.05.2014. It is categorically mentioned in this agreement that the shop in question was totally free from all encumbrances; no loan etc. was existing thereupon. Whereas, the Investigating Officer has collected positive evidence to show that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.1.5 crore by mortgaging the shop in question with Axis Bank on 14.05.2014. Manifestly, thus, the petitioner fraudulently induced the complainant into making the agreement in question, at a much lower price than the actual price of the shop because he knew very well that the shop would not be transferred as it was mortgaged. By making a categoric statement in the agreement that the shop was free from all encumbrances and concealing the fact that the loan was existing thereupon, the intention of the accused petitioner to cheat the complainant at the inception of the contract is writ large on the face of the record. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner sold the same shop once against to one Satendra Kumar despite the agreement to sale existing in the petitioner's favour and thus, the criminal intention of the accused is writ large on the face of record. 10. The other contentions of Mr. Jain regarding the petitioner not knowing the complainant from before, the futility of the complainant's claim that he gave a sum of Rs.25 lacs to the accused etc. are purely questions of fact, which have to be probed into by the Investigating Officer. 11. In view of the facts narrated above, this court is of the firm opinion that the impugned FIR and the material collected so far by the Investigating Officer definitely disclose the necessary ingredients of cognizable offences. Hence, it would not be prudent for this court to hold, that the case involves a dispute purely of civil nature. 12. Thus, it is not considered to be a fit case warranting exercise of this court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, so as to quash the FIR at this stage. Hence, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The stay application is also dismissed.