Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pukhraj Dhoka vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5364/2019

1. Pukhraj Dhoka S/o Maganlal Ji, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Village Guda, Tehsil Nathdwara, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.) At Present Netaji Subhash Road, Station Road, Opposite Jhulelal Pani Puri Vendor, Bharat Electric, Mulund (West) Mumbai (Maharashtra)

2. Jeevanlal Dhoka S/o Pukhraj Ji, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Guda, Tehsil Nathdwara, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.) At Present Netaji Subhash Road, Station Road, Opposite Jhulelal Pani Puri Vendor, Bharat Electric, Mulund (West) Mumbai (Maharashtra)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Gordhandas Vaishnav S/o Lt. Sh. Mohandas Vaishnav, R/o Futi Bawadi, Ram Chowk, Sardargarh Tehsil Amet, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5363/2019

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Kamal Singh S/o Sh. Shankar Singh Panwar, R/o New Colony, Amet, Tehsil Amet, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Respondents

(2 of 6)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Sehlot (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta (through VC) Present in person : Mr. Shiv Lal Bairva, Addl. S.P., Rajsamand

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

25/01/2022

These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 CrPC have

been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of the FIR

No.291/2019 of Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand.

It is informed that during pendency of the this criminal misc.

petition, petitioner No.1 namely Pukhraj Dhoka has died.

     The      impugned           FIR         was          lodged     by     the

complainant/respondent         No.2        alleging        therein   that   the

complainant has purchased a residential plot in Suncity Residential

Scheme at Village Gudali, Tehsil Kankroli, District Rajsamand on

27.05.2010, measuring about 1395.62 sqr. ft. It is further alleged

that the accused Nos.2 to 7, mentioned in the FIR, are the

partners and they have launched the said Suncity Residential

Scheme. It is also alleged the complainant has purchased the plot

in question in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and sale-deed was

executed in his favour by deceased petitioner No.1-Pukhraj Dhoka.

It is alleged that the petitioner has further sold the plot in

question to one Smt. Dilkhush Kanwar wife of Ratan Singh Ji on

23.11.11, however, when the said subsequent purchaser has

raised a boundary wall over the said plot, the same was destroyed

by the Ayurvedic Department claiming that the plot in question,

(3 of 6)

which was sold to the complainant is of the Ayurvedic Department

land.

The complainant has further alleged that the persons named

in the FIR have committed the offence of cheating by preparing

forged patta of the said plot, which was owned by the Government

Department. It is, therefore, alleged that the accused-persons

have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 406,

467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and the investigation in to the

impugned FIR is going on.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as a

matter of fact, the Directors of the Suncity Residential Scheme has

applied for issuance of Patta under Section 90-B of Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act and the concerned Municipal Board, after verifying

that the said land falls within the said residential scheme, has

issued a patta in its favour. It is further submitted that the plot in

question was sold to the complainant way back in the year, 2010

and at the time of execution of the sale-deed, the possession of

the plot in question was also handed over to the complainant but

the impugned FIR is lodged in year 2019 that is also as wrong

facts.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, prayed that

impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these

misc. petitions and submitted that from a bare reading of the

contents of the impugned FIR, case for commission of offence is

made out, therefore, the same cannot be quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

contents of the FIR.

(4 of 6)

The complainant, in his complaint, has specifically alleged

that the plot in question was sold by the Directors and other office

bearers of the Suncity Residential Scheme and he has paid

consideration for purchase of the plot in question, however, in fact

the said plot is situated on the land belonging to the Ayurvedic

Department and the accused persons while preparing the forged

patta of the said plot has sold it to the complainant despite the

fact that the same does not belong to them.

This Court of the opinion that from a bare reading of the

contents of the complaint filed by the complainant, case for

commission of offence is made out. It is matter of investigation as

to what is the role of the petitioner No.2 in the matter and at this

stage, it cannot be said that a bare reading of the impugned FIR,

no case for commission of offfence is made out.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s.

Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has

examined the powers of the High Court of quashing First

Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising

the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(5 of 6)

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(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. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."

In a later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan

Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill &

(6 of 6)

Anr. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the

above principle.

In the instant case, after reading the contents of the

impugned FIR, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by

the complainant against the petitioner do not prima facie

constitute any offence, at this stage it cannot be said that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR.

In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court