HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1423/2019
1. Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramratan Sharma,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sawai Bhoj Nagar, Near Milk
Dairy, Ward No.35, Agra Road, District Dausa.
2. Ramratan Sharma S/o Shri Anandi Lal Sharma, R/o Ganga
Vihar Colony, Somnath Nagar, Ward No.34, Agra Road,
District Dausa.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Narayan Singh Rajput S/o Shri Surjan Singh, R/o
Bichalwas, Ps Sadar Dausa, District Dausa, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
09/11/2021
1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition for quashing of FIR No. 13/2019 registered at police station Sadar Dausa, District Dausa.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had entered into an agreement to sale with the complainant and had taken possession of the property. A false case has been registered against them. Initially, the investigation was done by the officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police who had come to the conclusion that offence is not made out. Thereafter, (Downloaded on 15/11/2021 at 09:22:02 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1423/2019] police has started further investigation in the case and is now trying to implicate the present petitioners.
3. Counsel for the State and complainant have opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that petitioners have forged the agreement to sale. It is also contended that the area mentioned in the agreement to sale is 904 sq. yards, whereas actually the land in question is only 830.55 sq. yards. It is further contended that petitioner has also filed an FIR Bearing No. 81/2019, wherein police has submitted negative final report and while submitting the negative final report, police has mentioned that in FIR No. 13/2019 offence is found to be made out against the present petitioners. It is also contended that criminal proceedings at initial stage must be treated as rarest of rare as has not scuttle prosecution.
4. Counsel for the complainant in this regard has placed reliance on M/s Medohl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd. (2000 AIR (SC) 1869).
5. It is also contended that defence of the accused cannot be seen at the stage when the matter is still under investigation by the police. Reliance in this regard is placed on M. Vinod Kumar Vs. H.D. Kumaraswami and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 2016 decided on 27.09.2016.
6. I have considered the contentions and perused the FIR.
7. There is specific allegation in the FIR that petitioners have forged the agreement to sale. Even otherwise an agreement to sale wherein there is recital of handling over the possession is compulsorily registrable, whereas, the agreement on the basis of which petitioner is claiming that he has purchased the property is an unregistered document. This Court is not required to consider (Downloaded on 15/11/2021 at 09:22:02 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1423/2019] the defence of the petitioners at this stage, as from mere reading of FIR, commission of cognizable offence is made out, even in the FIR filed by the petitioner, police has submitted negative final report and has observed that offence is made out in the present FIR No. 13/2019. Hence, this court is not inclined to entertain the present Misc. Petition.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is dismissed.
9. Stay Petition stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J NIKHIL KR. YADAV /3 (Downloaded on 15/11/2021 at 09:22:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)