At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
For the Petitioner: J.R. Tantia, Advocate. For the Respondents: N.S. Dhakad, P.P.
1. Petitioner-accused has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 202/2015 registered at PS Sodala, Jaipur (South) for the offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 complainant had lodged a report before SHO, PS Sodala, Jaipur (South) which reads as under:-
3. On the above said report, FIR No. 202/2015 u/s 420 & 406 IPC was registered and i
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
vestigation commenced.4. Mr. Bhawani Singh, ASI, PS Sodala is present in person and submitted factual report of the matter through Mr. N.S. Dhakad, learned Public Prosecutor which is taken on record.5. As per factual report, offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC is made out against the present petitioner.6. Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per agreement, 25 days' time limit was fixed for payment of remaining sale amount. The respondent no. 2 complainant failed to make payment of remaining sale amount, therefore, said agreement has automatically stood cancelled. The petitioner has already issued notice to respondent no. 2 and even after notice, respondent no. 2 failed to pay the remaining sale amount, therefore, dispute is only of civil nature. No offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust is made out. As such FIR and continuing of investigation, in the said FIR is abuse of process of law. Therefore, same may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per agreement there is no condition that if the payment is not made in time the agreement shall be treated as cancelled. He submits that without cancellation of agreement, petitioner has sold out the disputed land to other persons against lucrative amount. Therefore, prima facie offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC is made out, therefore, this misc. petition may be dismissed.8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.9. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335] Hon'ble Supreme Court framed seven grounds for quashing the FIR which are as under:-1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.3. Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."10. In the case in hand, there are serious allegations against the present petitioner that after receiving part payment of sale amount i.e. Rs.1,11,000/- against Rs.24 lacs petitioner sold out the same property to other persons and the allegations are found proved during investigation, therefore, none of the above ground exists for quashing the FIR. Hence, this misc. petition stands dismissed.Petition dismissed.
"2016 (1) CRLR 343, 2015 (37) RCR(Cri) 164,"