Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

JAYA BHARDWAJ V/S STATE OF RAJ. & ANOTHER , decided on Thursday, December 17, 2015.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5153 of 2015. ] 17/12/2015
Advocate(s) : J.R. Tantia. N.S. Dhakad, P.P.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Animal Welfare Board of India Versus People for Elimination of Stray Troubles & Others,   17/11/2016.  

  Mamta Bhardwaj Versus Madhusudan Bhardwaj,   16/01/2015.  

  Union of India Versus Ram Lal & Others,   13/01/2015.  

  Tauheed Mohammad & Others Versus Jamia Millia Islamia University & Others,   20/02/2014.  

  Shashi Bala Versus Rajiv Arora,   21/03/2012.  

  Microsoft Corporation & Another. Versus G-Net Technologies & Others.,   31/10/2011.  

  D Jayachandra Naidu Versus UOI & Others,   02/09/2011.  

  Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Others Versus Suresh Chand Vashist & Others,   06/08/2010.  

  G. Elayaperumal VersusThe State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government School Education Department, Chennai & Another,   23/11/2009.  

  Usha Rani & Another Versus State (Delhi Admn.) ,   10/07/2009.  

  Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Versus K. R. Mann ,   28/03/2008.  

  Ummed Singh Versus State of M.P.,   17/05/2007.  

  Kailash Chand Versus Government of The National Capital Territory of Delhi,   25/04/2003.  

  R.S. Nayak Versus A.R. Antulay ,   16/02/1984.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2016 (1) CRLR 343"  ==   " 2015 (37) RCR(Cri) 164"  ==   ""  

    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:-LANGUAGE3. On the above said report FIR No. 202/2015 u/s 420 & 406 IPC was registered and investigation 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.