Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1810 (ALL)

Rajneesh Kumar Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-08-02

NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, VIVEK CHAUDHARY

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. The present petitioner has been filed with the following main reliefs: “(i) to issue an writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 25.7.2024 lodged by opposite party no. 4 registered as Case Crime No. 0180/2024 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Gosaiganj, District-Ayodhya, so far as relates to the petitioners during pendency of this writ petition contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition to meet the ends of justice. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite party No. 1 to 3 not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of First Information Report dated 25.7.2024 lodged by opposite party No. 4 registered as Case Crime No. 0180/2024 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Goshaiganj, District Ayodhya so far as relates to the Petitioners contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition in the interest of justice.” 2. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the applicants are illiterate and only able to write their names. They agreed to sell the part of their land i.e. Plot No. 1459 having area 0.0210 hectare in favour of Rajnish Verma in rupees five lacs. The opposite party prepared the sale deed of so many pages and got their signs on the said pages of sale deed and produced the same before Sub Registrar on 1.2.2024 for its registration. The registration of sale deed was done. In fact, the purchaser only with intention to cheat applicants wrongly included the Plot No. 1725 having area 1.037 hectare along with Plot No. 1459. This fact could not come in the knowledge of applicants at the time of execution of sale deed. The purchaser has wrongly and fraudulently included the Plot No. 1725 having area 1.037 hectare as sold property. Although the purchasers gave many cheques with regard to consideration money to the applicants, thereafter after getting the signature of applicants, the purchasers took back the same from applicants on the assurance to deposit the cheques in their bank accounts. They never deposited the aforesaid cheques in their bank accounts. They have also wrongly mentioned the consideration value as rupees fifty five lacs that has been paid to the sellers. The boundary has wrongly been mentioned in the sale deed. They never deposited the aforesaid cheques in their bank accounts. They have also wrongly mentioned the consideration value as rupees fifty five lacs that has been paid to the sellers. The boundary has wrongly been mentioned in the sale deed. Subsequently, the purchaser Rajnish Verma has wrongly sold the area 0.101 hectare of Plot No. 1725 in favour of the Phool Prasad Pal on 12.2.2024. The witnesses as well as writer of the sale deed are in collusion with purchaser Rajnish Verma all have committed fraud with intention to cheat the sellers, consequently, the sellers have become landless. On the basis of above contentions, the FIR dated 25.7.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 0180 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC has been lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR has been lodged with false contention. They have purchased the areas of both the Plot Nos. 1459 and 1725 with full and proper consideration. The sale deed is genuine and well within the knowledge of the informant. There is neither any tempering nor any fraud which has been played by the petitioners with sellers. The dispute is of civil in nature. The names of purchasers have been mutated over the revenue record and the FIR has been lodged only with intention to blackmail the purchasers which is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the sellers are illiterate as they had put their thumb impression over the pages of sale deed. The substantial contents of sale deed were written by pen whereas other contents were properly typed. The above differences in writing had not been declared at the foot of the deed when the deed was being prepared and was being produced for its registration and no reason has been shown as to under which circumstances some part of the contents of sale deed is typed and some part is hand written. Two copies of the sale deed have been annexed by the petitioners as Annexure-2 & 3 to the writ petition. Two copies of the sale deed have been annexed by the petitioners as Annexure-2 & 3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have submitted an another copy of the sale deed which is just photocopy of sale deed which has been filed as Annexure-2 but in the copy of the sale deed at Annexure-3, the consideration value has been mentioned as rupees five lacs for the purchase of Plot No. 1459 having area of 0.0210 hectare in which some part are blank and some contain cutting without any initial/signature, whereas in sale deed which has been filed as Annexure-2 with the petition, the consideration value has been mentioned as rupees fifty five lacs for the purchase of two Plot Nos. 1459 area of 0.0210 hectare and Plot No. 1724 having area of 1.0370 hectare. In both the sale deeds E-stamp numbers are same. Date of execution is same and detail of registration no. i.e. Bahi No. 1 Registration No. 1181 year 2024 are same. Date and timing of registration i.e. 1.2.2024 at 02:31:48 PM and all the signatures are also same. Apart from that in comparison to market value, the consideration value which has been shown in sale deed (annexure -2) is much lesser, therefore, a situation of doubt reflects from the face of record which provides strength to the prosecution case that some mischief/fraudulent activity has been performed at the time of registration of sale deed in question. The intention of cheating also reflects from very inception, hence, petitioners are not liable to get any remedy on the ground of equity. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the record. 6. On query, learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy the Court that as per recital of sale deed how the consideration amount has actually been paid to the sellers. All the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners as well as AGA are factual which require assessment of evidence, for which this Court has no jurisdiction. By bare perusal of FIR, prima facie, commission of cognizable offence is made out, therefore, the FIR in question cannot be quashed on the basis of arguments of counsel for the petitioner. The Court is decline to entertain the petition under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.