Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2365 (RAJ)

Bhawana Pachauri v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-02

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These four petitions are arise of same property, so, these four petitions are decided simultaneously. 2. Petitioners have preferred these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR Nos.06/2021, 244/2020 and 479/2020 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Smt. Bhawana Pachauri submitted that petitioner is bona-fide purchaser. She had purchased the disputed property plot No.C-409 (new No.C-503) from Arun Kumar Agarwal. She had given the consideration for the sale. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that husband of the petitioner Dr. Balgovind Sharma has lodged an FIR No.244/2020 at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur against the Sudha Gupta, Seema Sharma and Arun Kumar Agarwal in which her husband clearly stated that his friend Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma was investing in Arun Kumar Agarwal's Company Vaivabh Finance Enterprises since 2015 and on 29.11.2019 invested amount was used for purchasing the disputed plot and remaining amount was deposited in loan account of AU Small Finance Bank and mortgage loan was transferred in the name of Dr. Balgovind Sharma and sale deed was executed and registered in the name of petitioner. So, FIR was lodged against the petitioner be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Seema Sharma submitted that the petitioner-Seema Sharma also lodged an FIR No.479/2020 against Arun Kumar Agarwal and others for forgery and cheating. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner was arrested in one case for similar offence and she cannot be arrested in other case. So, FIR lodged against the petitioner bearing FIR No.06/2021 lodged by Sudha Gupta and FIR No.224/2020 lodged by Dr. Balgovind Sharma be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioners-Smt. Bhawana Pachauri, Seema Sharma and other Arun Kumar Agarwal had cheated the respondent-Sudha Gupta and they had sold the plot to each other without her consent. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that on 24.06.2015 plot of Sudha Gupta was fraudulently sold to Seema Sharma by impersonating other lady as Sudha Gupta. In Registry Rs.20,12,000/- consideration was given by way of cheque No.066721 dated 16.02.2015 of ICICI Bank but in investigation it was found that the said cheque was not deposited in the account of Sudha Gupta. In Registry Rs.20,12,000/- consideration was given by way of cheque No.066721 dated 16.02.2015 of ICICI Bank but in investigation it was found that the said cheque was not deposited in the account of Sudha Gupta. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that in sale deed, one of the attesting witness is Vijay Sharma who is husband of petitioner-Seema Sharma and other witness was Shilpa Sharma but address of Shilpa Sharma was not verified. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that registered sale deed was executed by fake I.D. instead of respondent Sudha Gupta. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that address of Sudha Gupta was not verified which was mentioned in the registered sale deed. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that after that, Seema Sharma by fake sale deed had sold the disputed plot to Arun Kumar Agarwal on 09.03.2019 by registered sale deed in the amount of Rs.35,11,000/- and it was mentioned in the sale deed that Rs.11,000/- was taken as a cash and Rs.25,00,000/- was paid on 22.09.2015 by cheque No.004907 of IDBI Bank and Rs.10,00,000/- by cheque No.103666 dated 21.06.2017 of Axis Bank Limited. The said registry was done on 09.03.2019 but consideration was given four years prior to date of registry, so, it is clear cut case of cheating. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that witnesses of sale deed Vikas Sharma was not verified and other witness Bhupendra Kumar Ujjania was servant of Seema Sharma. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that Arun Kumar Agarwal had sold the disputed plot by registered sale deed of 29.11.2019 to petitioner-Smt. Bhawana Pachauri in the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- and in sale deed it was stated that payment was done from 02.11.2015 to 29.11.2019 in 21 installments. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that in 2015, Arun Kumar Agarwal was not owner of disputed plot, so, he cannot sold the said plot by way of consideration of 2015 to 2019. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that respondent-Sudha Gupta has lodged a written complaint on 13.03.2020 but said report was not registered and report was put for investigation. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that registry of Seema Sharma did not bear the photo of Sudha Gupta and her signature. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that respondent-Sudha Gupta has lodged a written complaint on 13.03.2020 but said report was not registered and report was put for investigation. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that registry of Seema Sharma did not bear the photo of Sudha Gupta and her signature. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that during investigation, Investigating Officer had taken the receipt No.907 from Balgovind Sharma but said receipt was issued in the name of Ram Chandra Verma. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the petitioner-Seema Sharma and husband of petitioner-Bhawana Pachauri Dr. Balgovind Sharma has lodged a false FIR relating the disputed plot. So, these petitions be dismissed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that these three FIRs are simultaneously investigated by the Additional S.P. Avnish Kumar Sharma and after investigation, Investigating Officer had found the offences proved against the petitioners. So, these petitions be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent. 8. It is an admitted position that plot No.C-409 (new No.C-503) in the name of Sudha Gupta on 24.06.2015 by fake sale deed. The said plot was sold in the name of petitioner-Seema Sharma. The sale deed did not bear the signature and photograph of Sudha Gupta. The sale deed was executed by fake I.D. instead of Sudha Gupta. In the said sale deed, address of Sudha Gupta was not verified and also consideration was not transferred in the account of Sudha Gupta although consideration was by way of cheque of ICICI Bank but said cheque was not deposited in the account of Sudha Gupta, so, initial sale deed was fake. After that, Seema Sharma had sold the disputed plot to Arun Kumar Agarwal in consideration of Rs.35,11,000/- but sale deed was executed on 09.03.2019 but as per the sale deed payment was done two to four years prior to execution of sale deed and attesting witness Vikas Sharma address was not verified and other witness Bhupendra Kumar Ujjania was servant of Seema Sharma. After that, Arun Kumar Agarwal had sold the disputed plot to petitioner- Bhawana Pachauri on consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- but payment was done from 2015. At that time, Arun Kumar Agarwal was not owner of the disputed plot. After that, Arun Kumar Agarwal had sold the disputed plot to petitioner- Bhawana Pachauri on consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- but payment was done from 2015. At that time, Arun Kumar Agarwal was not owner of the disputed plot. So, these averments clear cut reveal that petitioners had done forgery in selling of plot. So, present petitions are being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions stand dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.