Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyendra Singh vs State And Anr on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3866/2017
Satyendra Singh Son Of Shri Akshay Singh Ranawat, By Caste
Rajput, Resident Of Jolawas, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Jinesh Nandawat Son Of Shri Prakash Chandra Nandawat,
Gogunda, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
Mr. Pradeep Shah
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 02/08/2022
Pronounced on 05/08/2022
1. This Criminal Petition has been preferred under Section 482
praying for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this misc.
petition may kindly be allowed and impugned Charge-
sheet No.88 dated 29.06.2017 (arising out of F.I.R. No.
229/2016) Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur as well
as entire proceedings as initiated thereunder against the
petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside."
2. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the
charge-sheet, bearing no.87(88), dated 29.06.2017 (arising out
the F.I.R. No. 229/2016, registered at Police Station, Gogunda,
District Udaipur), whereby the petitioner has been charge-sheeted
for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. and the
criminal proceedings accordingly, have been initiated against him.
3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are that it is the version of the
(Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 09:13:22 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-3866/2017]
prosecution that complainant, Jinesh Nandawat S/o Shri Prakash
Chandra Nandawat submitted a complaint before the
Superintendent of Police, Udaipur alleging therein that the Najool
property of the accused measuring 10037.50 sq. ft. situated in
Village Sayra, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur, which he obtained
through auction, for which a sale deed was also executed in his
favour. And that, a conditional agreement for the same was
executed between him and the accused-petitioner on 19.01.2016.
And that, as per the said agreement, it was agreed between them
that the complainant would pay a sum of Rs. 1 crore to the
accused, and that thereafter, both of them would sell the said plot
and divide the profits in the ratio of 60:40, to the accused and the
complainant, respectively. And that the complainant paid a sum of
Rs. 45 lakhs to the accused on 16.01.2016, and the remaining
sum of Rs. 55 lakhs was agreed to paid by him to the accused
petitioner at a later date. And that, on 28.09.2016, as alleged, it
came to the knowledge of the complainant that the accused-
petitioner has sold the said land to 6 different persons on
21.04.2016 and the sale deed thereof had been executed in 1/6th
share and each was sold off for Rs. 8,20,000/-. And that, upon
receipt of such complaint, the concerned police authority
forwarded the same to the S.H.O. Gogunga, for investigation, who
in turn, registered a case bearing F.I.R. No. 229/2016 for the
offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 478, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.
against the petitioner, and upon completion of investigation, filed
the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 420 and 406
I.P.C. before the learned court below.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from a
bare perusal of the material available on the record, no case under
the aforementioned provisions of the IPC is made out, and that,
(Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 09:13:22 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-3866/2017]
there is no evidence on record to substantiate the charge for the
said offences against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
complainant had named 9 accused persons in the F.I.R. initially,
and that if he is so capable of falsely implicating 8 persons, then
there is every possibility that the petitioner too has been falsely
implicated in this case, owing to an ulterior motive of the
complainant.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on a
perusal of the material available on record, no agreement for the
sale of plot of land as averred by the complainant was entered
into, and that the so-called agreement, even if at all exists, was
not sent for F.S.L. or signature verification. And that, looking to
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 : 1990 (2)
SCALE 1066, the present charge-sheet against the petitioner
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that any
dispute between the parties herein, being the accused-petitioner
and the complainant, is of a civil nature relating to a property, in
the realm of breach of contract, and therefore the criminal
proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserve to be quashed
and set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that
the charge-sheet was duly filed by the concerned police authority
after due investigation and upon finding that prima facie offences
under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. to be made out, and that,
indulgence of the Court at this stage would not be in the interest
of justice.
9. Heard learned counsel for both parties, perused the record of
the case and the judgment cited at the Bar.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 09:13:22 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-3866/2017]
10. This Court is also cognizant of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sethi and Ors. Vs. The
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 240,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the charge-sheet against
the accused therein after recording the finding that no prima facie
offence under Section 420 was made out against him, and that,
the dispute was clearly civil in nature.
12. Adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court finds that the precedent law of Sushil Sethi (supra)
does not apply in the present case as upon completion of
investigation, the concerned investigating officer has categorically
found prima facie offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. to
be made out against the accused-petitioner.
13. This Court further finds that the ratio decidendi laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
(supra) also does not apply in the present case, owing to the fact
that the accused-petitioner herein had himself admitted that he
received Rs.45 lakhs from the complainant, and that an
agreement was executed for the remainder of the sum of Rs. 55
lakhs to be paid at a later date by the complainant to him,
towards the sale of the property in dispute. Furthermore, the
signatures of both the said parties were made on the sale
document. And that, on the basis of such document, the
complainant in good faith advanced the aforementioned sum of
Rs. 45 lakhs to the accused-petitioner.
14. This Court, after a perusal of the relevant materials on the
record, finds that a prima facie case against the accused-
petitioner to be made out. Therefore, no interference by this Court
in the charge-sheet so filed against the accused-petitioner herein
is made out.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 09:13:22 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-3866/2017]
15. Consequently, the present petitioner fails, and is hereby
dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
