Smt. Vijay Laxmi Wife Of Veer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3311 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1719/2022

Smt. Vijay Laxmi Wife Of Veer Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. 03, Banshi Vihar, Gurjar Ki Thadi,
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.     Shankar Lal Meena Son Of Shri Kinduri Lal, Resident Of A-
       53, Shiksha Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur City (East), Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7487/2021 Veer Singh Son Of Ram Singh Chauhan, Resident Of Plot No. 3, Banshi Vihar, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Shankar Lal Meena Son Of Shri Kinduri Lal, Resident Of A-

53, Shiksha Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur City (East) , Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP Mr. Kirodee Lal Meena, Adv. & Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 19/04/2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 26/04/2022

The instant criminal misc. petitions have been preferred by

the accused petitioners praying therein to quash FIR No.126/2021

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1719/2022]

registered at Police Station Ramnagariya Jaipur City (East) for the

offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

respondent No.2-Shankar Lal Meena and petitioner-Veer Singh are

very closed friends. They were doing the business in the title of

Sale and Purchase of Plots. The present FIR was lodged by

respondent No.2 Shankar Lal Meena merely to settle the score and

account instead of filing civil suit. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also submits that Smt. Gulab Devi executed a Power of

Attorney in favour of Smt. Vijay Laxmi and as per the said Power

of Attorney, petitioners had executed a sale agreement in favour

of Manisha on 15.03.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners

also submits that the petitioners are ready to execute the sale

deed of Plot No.67 in favour of Manisha instead of Plot No.68 and

thus there is no mala-fide intention of the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are

ready to return the money given by the respondent with interest

@ 7.5 per annum if the complainant does not want to execute the

sale deed of plot No.67. Learned counsel for the petitioners further

submits that Dheer Singh executed the Power of Attorney in

favour of the petitioner-Smt.Vijay Laxmi. Learned counsel for the

petitioners further submits that the present case pertains to civil

nature but complainant gave criminal colour to it instead of filing

of suit for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed.

Complainant had filed the present FIR with mala-fide intentions.

So, the present FIR lodged by the complainant be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance

on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Mohammed Ibrahim

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1719/2022]

and Others Vs. State OF Bihar and Another reported in

(2009) 8 SCC 751.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for

the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after

investigation, Investigating Officer has found proved the offence

under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that

intentions of the petitioners were mala-fide and they had executed

a sale agreement on 28.10.2013 in favour of the Manisha who is

daughter of the complainant. At that time, petitioner-Smt. Vijay

Laxmi had no Power of Attorney to execute the sale agreement in

favour of her. Learned counsel for the respondents further

submitted that Smt. Gulab Devi had executed a Power of Attorney

on 06.12.2013 in favour of the petitioner-Smt. Vijay Laxmi. After

that, petitioner-Smt. Vijay Laxmi executed another sale

agreement in favour of Manisha on 15.03.2014 and subsequently

she sold the disputed plot to Saroj Kanwar on 26.08.2015. So,

intentions of the petitioners are mala-fide and they have

committed offence of cheating and fraud with the complainant and

his daughter-Manisha. So, petitions filed by the petitioners be

dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as

learned counsel for the complainant.

It is an admitted position that when petitioner-Smt.Vijay

Laxmi executed the sale agreement with Manisha on 28.10.2013,

she had no authority to execute the same at that time. She had

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1719/2022]

got the Power of Attorney from Smt. Gulab Devi on 06.12.2013.

After that, accused petitioner Smt. Vijay Laxmi executed another

agreement for sale in favour of Manisha on 15.03.2014. After that,

intead of executing the sale deed in favour of Manisha, accused

petitioner Smt. Vijay Laxmi executed the sale deed in favour of

Saroj Kanwar on 26.08.2015. So, in my considered opinion,

petitioners committed offence of cheating and fraud with the

complainant as well as his daughter Manisha. So, these present

petitions filed by the petitioners being devoid of merits, are liable

to be dismissed.

Hence, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions stand

dismissed.

Stay applications also stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/15-16

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)