Rajasthan High Court
Moharpal S/O Sh. Gulab Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Satish Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3326/2021
Moharpal S/o Sh. Gulab Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village
Rajgarh, Tehail Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
2. Roopsingh S/o Sh. Jhamman, R/o Rampura, Tehsil And
District Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP
Mr. Nikhlesh Katara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA
Order
03/08/2021
1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.111/2021 registered at Police Station Mathura
Gate, Bharatpur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120B IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
material made available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
FIR has been lodged with totally false and fabricated allegations
only to settle the score in civil dispute. The petitioner Moharpal is
a bonafide purchaser of the subject land in which only 200 Sq.
Yards land has been purchased by the complainant. Rather the
present petitioner Moharpal is a victim of cheating, for which he
has lodged a complaint. The impugned FIR is a clear example of
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3326/2021]
abuse of process, absurd to be quashed. Reliance has been placed
on a judgment of the Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of
Uttarakhan [Cr.Appeal No.2069/2012 decided on 14-12-2012] and
of this court in Chhuttan Lal Vs. Smt. Kamli Devi [SB Cr. Misc.
Petition No.1903/2009 decided on 6-1-2015].
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition with the
submission that as per status report of investigation the offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC have been
proved against the petitioner Moharpal along with other persons.
Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the present
petitioner was well aware of the fact that the complainant was in
possession of the subject land and he purchased the land worth of
Rs.50 lacs in a meagre amount of only Rs.4 lacs, which clearly
indicates the intention of cheating of the accused-petitioner. The
petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard. Considered.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) SCC Online SC 315]
has categorically held that the FIR in a criminal case can only be
quashed under Section 482 CrPC if the contents of the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence. It has been further held that the
investigation is in the exclusive domain of the investigating agency
and no direction can be issued under Section 482 CrPC directing
the investigating agency to not arrest the accused petitioner or to
not take any coercive steps against him as the petitioner is at
liberty to seek anticipatory bail.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3326/2021]
8. In view of the above legal position it is not desirable to
comment on merits of the case. Suffice it to say that contents of
the FIR constitute the above mentioned offences. The present
petitioner is named accused in the FIR. After investigation above
mentioned offences have been found to be made out against the
petitioner. The petitioner is free to take all his objections before
the trial court. Therefore, in view of above legal position no case is
made out for quashing of the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J
Arn/62
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
