Rajasthan High Court
Sunita Devi W/O Shri Prem Chand ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 March, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3129/2020
1. Sunita Devi W/o Shri Prem Chand Mutha, R/o Khajanchi
Gali, Beawar, Dist. Ajmer.
2. Prem Chand Mutha S/o Late Shri Padam Chand Mutha,
R/o Khajanchi Gali, Beawar, Dist. Ajmer.
----Non-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP
2. Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Dilip Singh, R/o Pushkarganj,
Gali No. 1, Beawar, Dist. Ajmer.
----Non-Petitioners
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta with
Mr. Naresh Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
26/03/2021
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the status report
furnished by the Station House Officer, Beawar City, District Ajmer,
which is taken on record.
As per the status report, after investigation, the offences
have been found to be proved against the petitioners under
Sections 193, 420 & 120-B of IPC.
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC
has been filed for quashing the FIR No.216/2019 registered at
Police Station Beawar City, District Ajmer for the offences under
Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 452, 427 & 120-B of IPC.
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-3129/2020]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioner No.1 was neither aware of the execution of the
registered sale deed dated 08.07.2013 by her power of attorney
holder nor, she received any sale consideration under the
aforesaid sale deed. He submitted that the complainant has
already filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the subsequent
sale deed dated 21.05.2018 and hence, the FIR in question
deserves to be quashed. Qua the petitioner No.2, learned counsel
submitted that the FIR is bereft of any allegation against him. He
submitted that the petitioner No.2 was neither the executor of the
power of attorney nor of the subsequent sale deed dated
21.05.2018 and hence, he has falsely been implicated in this case.
He, therefore, prayed for quashing the FIR in question.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that during
the course of investigation it was found that the petitioner No.1
has executed the power of attorney as well as an agreement to
sale dated 01.10.2012 in favour of the complainant under which
she has already received the complete sale consideration. The
power of attorney as well as the sale agreement was witnessed by
the petitioner No.2. It was also mentioned in the agreement that
the original title documents were handed over to the complainant.
Thereafter, taking advantage of the plot lying vacant, the
petitioner No.2 lodged a report dated 09.05.2018 with the Police
Station Beawar Sadar, District Ajmer as to missing of the original
title documents of the plot in question and thereafter the plot in
question, which was already sold to the complainant, was re-sold
in favour of third person. The subsequent registered sale deed
also bears signature of petitioner No.2 as witness. He submitted
that in view of the aforesaid material collected by the investigating
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-3129/2020]
agency during the course of investigation, the offences under
Sections 193, 420 & 120-B of IPC have been found to be proved
against the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this
criminal miscellaneous petition.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
Undoubtedly, the FIR in question discloses commission of
cognizable offences against the petitioner No.1 and the allegations
have been found to be proved by the investigating agency.
The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of State of
Haryana & Ors. versus Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992
Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 in sub-clause 3 of para
102 has held as under:-
"3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused."
Thus as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of
India in case of State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), the material
collected by the investigating agency during the course of
investigation can also be taken into consideration before quashing
the FIR. The status report reveals that not only power of attorney;
but, an agreement to sale dated 01.10.2012 was also executed by
the petitioner No.1 in favour of the complainant receiving the
entire sale consideration. Both these documents i.e. power of
attorney and the sale agreement were witnessed by the petitioner
No.2 also. Thereafter, despite specific averment in the agreement
dated 01.10.2012 as to handing over of original title documents of
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-3129/2020]
the plot in question to the complainant, the petitioner No.2, with
dishonest intention, lodged a report dated 09.05.2018 with the
Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Ajmer stating therein that
original title documents of the plot in question were lost and
thereafter, in furtherance of their illegal and dishonest desire,
subsequent sale deed dated 21.05.2018 came to be executed in
favour of third person by the petition No.1 which was duly
witnessed by the petitioner No.2.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioner No.1 was unaware of the execution of registered sale
deed dated 08.07.2013 and she did not receive the sale
consideration also, are subject-matter of trial and cannot be
countenanced at this stage. Even otherwise also, under the law of
contract, the principal is bound by the act done by his/her agent
and the law presumes that the acts done by the agent under the
authority given by the principal, are on behest of the principal who
is aware of the same. Further, the investigation has revealed that
in furtherance of fraudulent intention, the petitioner No.2 has
lodged a false report dated 09.05.2018 as to the original
documents of the plot in question having been misplaced and
thereafter executed registered sale deed of the same plot in
favour of the third person.
Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that in view of filing of civil suit by the complainant seeking
cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.05.2018, the FIR in
question deserves to be quashed and set aside, has no merit. It is
trite that mere pendency of civil suit between the parties is no
ground to quash the criminal proceeding. I may in this connection
refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-3129/2020]
of M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 645,
Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.,
(2002) 1 SCC 555 & judgment of this Court in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.1618/2015, Basant Raj Mehta
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 01.03.2016.
In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law, the FIR in
question cannot be quashed on account of pendency of civil suit
filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of the subsequent
registered sale deed.
The offshoot of the aforesaid analysis is that this criminal
miscellaneous petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed
accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/30
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
