Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2138 (RAJ)

Guman Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-11-23

BIRENDRA KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioners have sought for quashment of FIR No. 376/2018 registered with Ashok Nagar, Police Station District Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474 and 120B IPC. 2. Mr. Sudhir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer is on the ground that a pure civil dispute has been sought to be redressed by a criminal proceeding especially after expiry of the limitation period for civil proceeding. Moreover, the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioners. Even for arguments sake, the prosecution case is accepted as it is, in FIR No. 3/2023 registered with SOG/ATS police Station, Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC wherein forgery of different pattas said to be issued by JDA has been raised against the petitioners including the pattas referred in the impugned FIR and this Court has already refused to quash FIR No.3/2023 above in SB. Cr. Writ Petition No. 618/2023 decided on 27.07.2023, therefore, allowing multiple criminal proceedings for the same cause would be an abuse of the process of law. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. S.S. Hora contends that mere pendency of a civil proceeding between the parties even if pending before a higher court would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings if the criminal proceedings discloses commission of cognizable offence. Reliance has been placed on Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State Of West Bengal And Ors. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 555 . Learned counsel for respondent No.2 next contends that in Ponnusamy Selvamani v. State & Ors., the Hon'ble Madras High Court stated that just because the claim under civil law got time barred, it could not at all be termed that the criminal action would not follow. Learned counsel next contends that it is admission of the petitioners that the patta, on the basis whereof petitioner No.1 pretended before respondent No.2 that she had title to sale the referred plot, was forged one, therefore, at the time of entering into agreement with respondent No.2, the petitioner No.1 was aware of the fact of forgery of the patta and as such acted with dishonest and fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement. 4. 4. The factual matrix of the case as disclosed in the impugned FIR and available material on record is that respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with petitioner No.1 Guman Khandelwal on 18.7.2014 to purchase plot No. 24, area 733.33 sq. yards of land in Mitra Nagar, Jhotwara in the town of Jaipur on total consideration of Rs. 61,00,000/-. At the time of agreement Rs. 10,00,000/- were paid through cheque to petitioner No.1. The agreement speaks that possession of the land under deal was handed over to the purchaser respondent No.2 and purchaser accepted the possession. It was agreed between the parties that within a year, the remaining consideration money would be paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner would execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.2. It is further stipulated that if petitioner No.1 would refuse to execute the sale deed, respondent No.2 would have right to get executed the same through process of law. 5. Thereafter, respondent No.2 did not send any notice to the vendor of his readiness and willingness to perform his part even after expiry of more than on year as agreed. The petitioner No.1 has produced a registered patta said to be executed by Jaipur Development Authority in favour of petitioner No.1 on 24.4.2009 which got registered with the registering authority on 29.4.2009 as her title deed in respect of the property under transfer. 6. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were running a registered company in the name of Guman Groups. The petitioners had engaged services of Rajvindra Singh and Avinash Sharma, under a written memorandum of understanding dated 30.1.2007 whereunder two named persons were to bring customers for purchase of plots and also to ensure execution of documents etc. Those two persons were authorized to get pattas from JDA. They obtained several pattas, however some of the pattas including the patta in question was found to be forged. Then Tikam Khandelwal brother of petitioner Shankar Khandelwal lodged FIR No. 604/2017 on 3.11.2017 against Rajvindra Singh and Avinash Sharma aforesaid with Jothwara Police Station for offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 read with 120B IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against those persons bearing charge-sheet No. 193 dated 24.07.2018. Then Tikam Khandelwal brother of petitioner Shankar Khandelwal lodged FIR No. 604/2017 on 3.11.2017 against Rajvindra Singh and Avinash Sharma aforesaid with Jothwara Police Station for offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 read with 120B IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against those persons bearing charge-sheet No. 193 dated 24.07.2018. The witnesses whose statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police in the aforesaid case sated involvement of only aforesaid accused persons in obtaining forged pattas. These developments took place prior to lodging of the impugned FIR. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Right to Information Act on 31.5.2017 with JDA inquiring about the genuineness of the patta on the basis whereof he had agreed to purchase the above referred property and was informed on 16.6.2017 that the patta was not genuine one, but respondent No.2 waited for more than a year to initiate criminal proceeding. 7. When the impugned FIR was challenged by the petitioners, a Bench of this Court by order dated 11.01.2019 accepted the proposal of the petitioners to return the consideration money of Rs. 10,00,000/- to respondent No.2. However, since respondent No.2 was not appearing at that time, respondent No.2 was noticed by the Court with a direction to the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Registry of the High Court. Accordingly, the petitioners deposited the same and the Court ordered that further proceedings arising out of impugned FIR would remain stayed. The police was aware about order of this Court dated 11.01.2019 which is mentioned in the charge-sheet No. 9/2019 dated 15.02.2019. In spite of that charge-sheet was submitted against petitioner Shankar Khandelwal which was submitted in direct derogation of direction of this Court dated 11.01.2019. The law is well-settled that the Court would continue to have the powers to entertain and act upon petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR even when a charge-sheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition. Reference may be made to Joseph Salvaraj A v. State Of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59 and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 as well as Abhishek v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh decided on 31.8.2023 in Cr. Appeal No. 1457/2015. 8. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59 and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 as well as Abhishek v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh decided on 31.8.2023 in Cr. Appeal No. 1457/2015. 8. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately considered the previous judgments on the scope and extent of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and held that power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norms formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made thereunder, but if the Court thinks fit regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law and more particularly, the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. The State Of Punjab reported in (2000) SC 866 and State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 9. A mere perusal of the facts of this case narrated above would make it clear that as soon as the Company of the petitioners came to know about forgery of the pattas obtained by its associates, Rajvindra Singh and Avinash Sharma, one of the partners lodged above-referred FIR 604 dated 3.11.2017 and after investigation of the case, the police came to the conclusion that those accused persons were responsible for obtaining the forged pattas, therefore, bonafide of the petitioners in acting against its associates, who were responsible for obtaining and producing forged pattas diligently goes to suggest that they were not aware of the of the pattas at the time of entering into agreement with respondent No.2 especially, when the patta was already a registered document. Even if for the argument sake, it is assumed that the forgery of patta was known to the petitioners, the issue is already involved in FIR No. 3/2023 (supra) and allowing the petitioners to be prosecuted in different FIRs for same cause would be an abuse of the process of law. Even if for the argument sake, it is assumed that the forgery of patta was known to the petitioners, the issue is already involved in FIR No. 3/2023 (supra) and allowing the petitioners to be prosecuted in different FIRs for same cause would be an abuse of the process of law. This Court has already refused to quash FIR No. 3/2023. In the circumstance, the present FIR would lead to multiplicity of proceeding for same act and would not be permissible in view of the law settled in T.T. Antoney v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 ; Babubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 ; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 348 and Prem Chand Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., in JT 2020 (2) SC 195 10. No doubt, no period of limitation for initiation of criminal proceedings in respect of the offences alleged is there however, the delay defeats the justice. As referred above, the civil remedy of respondent No.2 was already barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Hence allowing criminal prosecution after expiry of the period of limitation for civil remedies and even after expiry of one year of the knowledge of the forgery of the document would lead to miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of law. 11. From the facts stated above, it is evident that the petitioners had no knowledge, at the time of agreement with respondent No.2, that the patta provided to the Company of the petitioners by its associates was forged one. Soon after knowledge of the forgery of the patta, one of the partner of the Company lodged an FIR against the miscreants and after investigation, the Police found the allegation against those persons to be true, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, dishonest and fraudulent intention of the petitioners can be gathered. Respondent No.2 even after knowledge of the forgery of title deed of the vendor remained silent for one year and even allowed the period of limitation for civil remedy to expire. The petitioners readily agreed to refund the consideration money which would be only relief available to respondent No.2 after knowledge of the fact that the vendor had no transferable title. The petitioners readily agreed to refund the consideration money which would be only relief available to respondent No.2 after knowledge of the fact that the vendor had no transferable title. The petitioners have already deposited the consideration money with the Registry of the Court hence offence of under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC are not attracted. To attract other offences under Sections 467 etc. there must be a case of forgery and to establish forgery making of false document must be established. There is no averment in the FIR that the petitioners had made the false document rather contrary material is that two other associates of the Company Rajvindra Singh and Avinash Sharma had procured those forged pattas. Therefore, prima-facie offences alleged are not made out against the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, the impugned FIR and all subsequent criminal proceedings stands hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.