Rajasthan High Court

Pawan Kumar @ Rakesh S/O Jaswant ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2022

Bench: Birendra Kumar

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6967/2022

Pawan Kumar @ Rakesh S/o Jaswant Singh, R/o Hulmana Khurd,
Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.     Dhansingh S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Village Bhojpuri, Police
       Station Shahjahanpur, District Alwar.
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5359/2022

1. Ramesh S/o Mannaram, R/o Hulmana Khurd, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar.

2. Rajesh S/o Rohtash, R/o Village Bawadi, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Dhansingh S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Village Bhojpuri, Police Station Shahjahanpur, District Alwar.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Kapil Gupta
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Laxman Meena, PP
                               Mr. Pankaj Agarwal



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

                                    Order

Judgment reserved on                   :               23/08/2022
Date of Pronouncement                  :               29/08/2022

1. In both these petitions, the petitioners have sought for

quashing of FIR No. 166/2022 registered with Police Station

Shahjahanpur, District Bhiwadi for the offence under Section 420

(2 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022]

IPC on the ground that the FIR does not contain any allegation

against the petitioners and they are victims of malicious

prosecution for personal grudge. Both the cases involve identical

facts and grounds of challenge, hence are decided by this common

order.

2. According to FIR, Banwari Lal, father of the complainant died

on 28.4.2022. After cremation of the dead body, the nephew of

the complainant namely Manish S/o Mitthan Lal left the house and

came only on the 12th day of the ritual. Thereafter he again left

the house. Conduct of Manish raised some suspicion in the mind

of the informant and the informant got information from SBI Bank

that Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan standing in the name of Banwari

Lal was cleared on 26.4.2022 through Manish and Manish got NOC

from the Bank. Without knowledge of the legal heirs of Banwari

Lal, 0.46 hectares of land was transferred sold to petitioner

Ramesh Chand Yadav. The conspiracy was hatched by Manish and

petitioner Rajesh for getting a sale deed executed by Banwari Lal

on 26th April, 2022 itself in favour of Ramesh Chand Yadav. The

FIR was lodged on 18.5.2022. Simultaneously, a civil Case No.

46/14/2022 was brought before learned Additional District Judge,

Mundawar by all the sons and daughters of late Banwari Lal for

cancellation of sale deed referred in the FIR. In the civil suit, the

informant of this case as well as father of Manish are plaintiffs of

the suit and petitioner Pawan and Rajesh are not party to the suit.

The plaint does not show any statement against the petitioner

Pawan rather it stated that Manish, Rakesh and Ramesh Chand

Yadav defendant No.1 of the suit, were serving some stupefying

substance to keep mental condition of Banwari Lal unable to

understand the nature of the transaction.

(3 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Pawan submits that said

Banwari Lal had executed an agreement to sale the same property

to the petitioner on total consideration of Rs. 18 lacs. Mr. Ramesh

Chand was a witness on the said agreement to sale. However

Ramesh Chand got the sale deed in his name on payment of total

consideration of Rs. 7,31,600/- and the consideration money was

paid in the Bank account of Banwari Lal. The complaint does not

show that there was any forgery in the agreement to sale between

the petitioner Pawan and late Banwari Lal nor there is any

allegation that the petitioner Pawan was beneficiary to the

transaction.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant respondent contends

that the disputed sale deed was executed on 26.4.2022 and

Banwari Lal died on 28.4.2022. The consideration money of the

sale was transferred to the Bank Account of Banwari Lal on

30.4.2022 after the death of Banwari Lal, Banwari Lal was

carrying a bank account in the State Bank of India, hence there

was no reason to open a Bank Account in the Kotak Mahindra

Bank on 26.4.2022, therefore, there was something fishy in the

entire deal.

5. One thing is apparent that the informant of this case neither

in the impugned FIR nor in the civil suit has made any averment

against the petitioner Pawan's involvement. Therefore, evidently,

the criminal prosecution of the petitioner Pawan is attended with

malice and ulterior motive to wreak vengeance which is one of the

ground for quashing of the FIR as held in State of Haryana &

ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors., reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335.

(4 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022]

6. In the case of Rajeev Thapar Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor

(2013) 3 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated

following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing:

"(i) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?"

7. In the case on hand, the accused petitioner Pawan has relied

on material of the prosecution i.e. the statement in the FIR and

averments made in the plaint of civil suit which the private

respondents cannot deny. None of the two documents contain any

suspicion against the petitioner Pawan's involvement, hence

evidently, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner Pawan would

be an abuse of the process of law.

8. In the result, the impugned FIR qua petitioner Pawan stands

hereby quashed and this petition stands allowed.

S.B.Cr. Misc. (Petition) No. 5359/2022

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners Ramesh and Rajesh

contend that only suspicion has been raised in the FIR and

suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Moreover, from the

record, it is evident that the father Banwari Lal first cleared the

(5 of 6) [CRLMP-6967/2022]

loan of the State Bank of India taken on the land under transfer.

Only thereafter, executed the sale deed in respect of his 1/3 share

in the property and the consideration money passed through

account. The registration of the document was completed in the

presence of the registering authority, therefore, only on suspicion

it cannot be alleged that the transaction was fishy one.

10. From the record, it is evident that Banwari Lal died on

28.4.2022. The following transactions were completed on

26.4.2022:

(i) Bank loan was cleared and the property was released from mortgage.

(ii) A separate bank account was opened in the name of Banwari Lal in a different bank.

(iii) The sale deed under challenge in civil suit was executed and one of the petitioner is beneficiary of the sale deed and another is witness on the sale deed.