Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Singh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
th
ON THE 7 OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21428 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAKESH SINGH RATHORE S/O SHRI MOHAN
SINGH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS NEAR RAM MANDIR NEW
SHEETAL NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PIYUSH SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
THROUGH HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
LASUDIYA DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA, GOVT. ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SHRI TARESH KUMAR SONI, T.I. POLICE
STATION-LASUDIYA, INDORE).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
01] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.687/2018
dated 01.08.2018, against the petitioner along with the other accused
persons at Police Station Lasudiya, District-Indore for offence under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860, and all the consequential proceedings.
02] In brief, facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR has been
lodged alleging that the petitioner and the other accused persons were
involved in a fraud wherein, a sum of Rs.72.5 lakhs was given by the
complainant to the accused persons, as it was alleged that a land was
sold for the second time by the same person. Admittedly, the FIR has
been lodged not by the purchaser of the land but, the broker, who was
involved in the deal.
03] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even as per the
FIR, no overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner-Rakesh
Singh Rathore, who had nothing to do with the offence and he is
being unnecessarily dragged into the matter only because of his
acquaintance with the other accused persons.
In support of his submission, Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Jain and another vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others reported as (2022)3 SCC 497 wherein, it is
held that the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be an
abuse of process of law and court, and would lead to unnecessary
harassment to the appellants, hence liable to be quashed
04] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has
opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is
made out, as the charge sheet has already been filed yesterday only
i.e., on 06.02.2024, and the petitioner will have ample opportunity to
contest the matter and also to argue at the time of framing of charges.
05] Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
06] From the case diary, it is apparent that the FIR has been
lodged on 01.08.2018; whereas the date of incident is said to be
between 28.02.2017 to 01.08.2018, and it has been lodged against as
many as seven persons, including the present petitioner. In the FIR, no
specific overt act is attributed to the present petitioner except that he
was also involved in the case, and the case diary also reveals that the
only document available on record in which the name of the present
petitioner has appeared, is the statement of the complainant Suraj
Rajak S/o Prakashchandra Rajak recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C., in which, he has stated that the purchaser-Chandramohan
Shrivastava has paid a sum of Rs.72.50 Lakhs to Dinesh Thakur in
cash and through cheques, and the remaining amount has also been
given to Shasmit Vyas, Rakhesh Rathore-the present petitioner, and
Atual Neema because Dinesh Thakur works with Shasmit Vyas. It is
also stated that the present petitioner, along with the other accused
persons had also come to his office and assured him that they would
return his money back but, till date the amount has not been paid.
07] On a query made by this Court to the counsel for the
respondent, it is submitted that nothing has been seized from the
petitioner and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any
amount was given to the present petitioner, or any cheque was ever
presented in his account. Thusm apart from the aforesaid statement of
the complainant, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner
with the offence.
08] So far as in the case of Rekha Jain and another (supra) is
concerned, the Supreme Court has held as under :-
"6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and having perused the
allegations in the complaint/FIR, it can be seen that the
main allegations are against the other co-accused -- Arun
Kumar Maheshwari and others. The only allegation
against the appellants is that they have purchased the
property in question, which was attached in the year 1998-
1999 against the amounts due and payable to the
depositors, who had deposited in Kuber Mutual Benefits
Ltd. between 1998-1999. It is to be noted that the property
has been purchased by the appellants in the year 2019.
Nothing is brought on record that at the time when the
property was purchased by the appellants, the attachment
was continued and/or any attachment was registered.
There are no allegations that the appellants are related to
the other co-accused, Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others.
Even from the averments and the allegations in the FIR, it
cannot be said that there is any prima facie case made out
against the appellants for the offences under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The main allegations
are against the other co-accused. Therefore, to continue
the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be
an abuse of process of law and the Court and unnecessary
harassment to the appellants, who seem to be the
purchasers of the property on payment of sale
consideration. In the above facts and circumstances of the
case, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers
and discretion under Section 482 CrPC and ought to have
quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned
judgment and order [Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. State of
U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1862] passed by the High
Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The criminal
proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 for
the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur including the
charge-sheet are hereby quashed and set aside insofar as
the appellants herein -- Smt Rekha Jain and Smt
Minakshi Jain are concerned. The present appeal is
accordingly allowed."
09] When the facts of the present case are tested on the anvil of
the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rekha
Jain and another (supra), this Court has no hesitation to hold that
prosecution of the petitioner in the present case would be an abuse of
the process of law and would lead only to his unnecessary
harassment.
10] In view of the same, while exercising the inherent powers of
this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the FIR registered at Crime
No.687/2018 dated 01.08.2018 at Police Station Lasudiya, District-
Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120-B, 34
of Indian Penal Code,1860 and all the consequential proceedings, so
far as it relates to present petitioner, are hereby quashed.
11] With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
