HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8279/2021
Lal Chand S/o Sh. Deva Ram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village
And Post Shishyu, Police Station Ranoli District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Ballu Ram S/o Sh. Deva Ram, R/o Village And Post
Shishyu, Police Station Ranoli District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, PP Mr. Ishwar Tiwari, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order ORDER RESERVED ON :: 16.09.2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 20.09.2022 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.216/2021 dated 14.07.2021 registered at Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar for the Offences Punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 is real brother of the petitioner. Petitioner had borrowed money of Rs.10,000/- from respondent No.2 in the year 1993 but he had returned the same but due to illiteracy, he had not taken receipt of payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had asked to the respondent No.2 for (Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 01:12:22 AM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8279/2021] returning of agreement but respondent No.2 told him that he would destroyed it but he had not destroyed the said document and filed the present FIR with mala-fide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose of any offence against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that by making a false and fabricated document dated 03.09.1995, respondent No.2 had filed an application before Court of Collector (Stamp) Sikar-Division on 05.10.2020. In the said proceeding, petitioner had not engaged any Advocate for his defense. Respondent No.2 had got the order dated 18.02.2021 by the learned Court of Collector Stamp by collusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent No.2 had lodged the present FIR with ulterior motive and also submitted that petitioner had sold the land to Subhash Kumar Jakhar by sale deed dated 16.04.2021. So, FIR lodged against the petitioner be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation, Investigating Officer had found the offence(s) under Section 420 and 406 IPC proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioner had sold the disputed land to complainant-respondent on 01.02.1993 and got payment of Rs.10,000/- and he had executed the stamp on 03.09.1995. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that respondent had filed the petition before the Collector Stamp, Sikar for impounding of stamp in which petitioner had engaged his lawyer. After hearing both the parties, Collector Stamp had ordered to deposit the deficit stamp and complainant had (Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 01:12:22 AM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8279/2021] deposited the stamp as per the order. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioner wrongly sold the disputed land to Subhash Kumar Jakhar. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioner had cheated the respondent. So, petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6136/2019 (Satish Badaya Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 24.02.2021.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.
It is an admitted position that petitioner had sold the disputed land to the respondent on 01.02.1993 and also executed the stamp on 03.09.1995. After that, complainant had impounded the stamp before Collector Stamp in which petitioner also participated in the proceedings. Petitioner had wrongly sold the disputed land to Subhash Kumar Jakhar. After investigation, Investigating Officer had also found the offence(s) under Section 420 and 406 IPC proved against the petitioner. So, in my considered opinion, no ground is made out for quashment of the FIR. So, the present petition being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /55 (Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 01:12:22 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)