Rajasthan High Court
Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 November, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
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,
(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
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
