w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sidharth v/s State of Rajasthan & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- R SIDHARTH & COMPANY (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1991PTC051089

    Criminal Misc. Petition No. 464 of 2012

    Decided On, 17 August 2012

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

    For the Petitioner: Mr. Firoz Khan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Chandralekha, P.P., Gaurav, I.O., Advocate.



Judgment Text

Sandeep Mehta, J.

The instant misc. petition is directed seeking quashing of the FIR No.4/11 registered at Police Station Gudamalani, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 420, 415 and 418 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for sale of land belonging to the petitioner in the village Gudamalani on 14.8.2007. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.8875/- at the time of the agreement and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid by 15.11.2007 on which the registry of the land was to be executed in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel contends that the complainant failed to make the payment of the remaining amount by 15.11.2007 on which another agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein the time for payment of the remaining amount was extended till 15.1.2008. The petitioner sold his land to Dala Ram S/o Rani Dan on 29.11.2010. Thereafter, the complainant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against the petitioner on 23.12.2010 and now he has entangled the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR without any justification. He submits that exfacie, the allegations levelled by the complainant do not disclose any offence whatsoever. He thus, submits that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the FIR impugned and all subsequent proceedings thereto be quashed.

This Court had issued notices to the respondent complainant and had directed the learned Public Prosecutor to summon the case diary along with the Investigating Officer.

The Investigating Officer Shri Gaurav present in the Court submitted that initially the investigating agency after investigation had found the case to be of civil nature and had proposed a Final Report in the case. Thereafter on the directions of the Superintendent of Police, the matter has been reinvestigated and now the Police proposes to file a chargesheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the FIR impugned as well as the statement of the complainant, it is apparent that the agreement, which was entered into between the parties prescribed a specific date i.e. 15.11.2007 and thereafter 15.1.2008 before which the complainant was to make the payment of the balance amount towards the sale. The complainant in his FIR or his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not made any averment that he offered to make the remaining payment to the accused and despite that, the accused did not execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. Even if the said allegation had been made, then also, the remedy for the complainant would have been to file a suit for specific performance. The subsequent sale by the petitioner has been made on 29.11.2010 i.e. nearly 2 years after the term prescribed in the agreement between the petitioner and the complainant lapsed.

In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

that none of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are made out from the FIR impugned and the investigation carried out thus far. Accordingly, the misc. petition succeeds and is allowed. The FIR impugned and all proceedings subsequent thereto are hereby quashed. Stay petition is also disposed of.
O R