Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 601 (UTT)

Amit Sehgal v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-10-20

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.554 of 2023, under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, with related reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the respondent no.3, the informant, entered into an agreement to sale with the petitioner. The petitioner had agreed to sell a property to the informant at a consideration of Rs.68,55,000/-. The petitioner had received entire sale consideration except Rs.18,55,000/- which were to be given at the time of execution of sale deed. The agreement was to remain valid till 14.06.2023. The petitioner did not execute sale deed. Instead, on 25.04.2023, he sold the property to some other person. Thereby cheated the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no offence under Section 467 IPC is made out, even if the FIR is accepted in its entirety. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to return the consideration; in fact, it was a loan transaction; the petitioner has taken a loan from the informant, and as a security to the loan, the agreement was executed; there was no intention, as such, to transfer the ownership of the property. 5. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. 6. The FIR records that the petitioner has forged certain documents. What are those documents, admittedly, this Court cannot record any finding on that aspect. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that as per agreement to sale, executed between him and the informant, the property was to be transferred by the petitioner to the informant for a large consideration. Large portion of the consideration has already been transferred to the petitioner, but, the petitioner, during the subsistence of the agreement, which was to expire in the month of June, 2023, executed a sale deed in favour of some other person. Does it mean that the petitioner has the intention to cheat the informant since inception? Has the petitioner forged any document? If so, what were those documents? These all factors would find scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. Does it mean that the petitioner has the intention to cheat the informant since inception? Has the petitioner forged any document? If so, what were those documents? These all factors would find scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. At this stage, the way transactions were done by the petitioner restrains this Court from making any interference. It is a matter, which definitely requires to be investigated. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 7. The petition is dismissed in limine.