Rajkumar Pamecha vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12469 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6142/2022

Rajkumar Pamecha S/o Tarachand Pamecha, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 4C Haridas Ji Ki Magari Udaipur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan

2. Ambalal Suthar S/o Kalulal Suthar, R/o Mayank Colony Behind St. Gregorious School Udaipur Raj.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Anuj Sahlot
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. M.S. Bhati, Public Prosecutor



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

18/10/2022

1. The instant FIR (being FIR No.226/2022, P.S. Goverdhan

Vilas, Udaipur) has been challenged on the ground that the same

has been filed vindictively and in order to exert pressure to

recover the amount of money.

2. The facts narrated in the FIR makes it apparent that after

failing to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant, the

petitioner had entered into a written compromise and, inter-alia,

agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.42 lacs to the complainant. Out of

the aforesaid amount of Rs.42 lacs, the petitioner has admittedly

paid a sum of Rs.18 lacs on 24.08.2021, a cheque of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.08.2021 and the remaining amount of Rs.22

lacs was to be paid within a period of 15 days.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6142/2022]

3. But the petitioner has not paid the remaining amount of

Rs.22 lacs in spite of making committment in the form of a

memorandum of settlement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following

judgments in his support :-

"1. Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr. : (2005) 10 SCC 228

2. Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. : (2005) 10 SCC 336"

The judgements cited by the petitioner are clearly

distinguishable.

5. The Court posed a question to learned counsel for the

petitioner, as to whether the petitioner is ready and willing to pay

the remaining amount of Rs.22 lacs. In response to such

question, the answer was a clear no with an assertion that it is a

purely civil dispute for which the complainant should take civil

remedies.

6. It is to be noted that the original transaction took place in

the year 2017, petitioner initially neglected/refused to execute

sale deed and then, agreed to refund the money by entering into a

compromise in August, 2021.

7. Entering into such compromise in August, 2021 and having

paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- refusing to pay the remaining

amount shows clear ill will of the petitioner to deprive the

complainant and devouring his money or cheating the complainant

of Rs.22 lacs.

8. Even today, the petitioner has not come up with a fair

proposition to pay the remaining amount. He has no excuse to

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6142/2022]

offer for not returning the money he had received in advance in

year 2017.

9. In the case of Anil Mahajan (supra), no criminal allegations

were levelled by the complainant in the legal notice sent to the

petitioner (in that case) for recovery of remaining amount.

Similarly, in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika (supra), it was not

alleged that intention to cheat existed at the time of institution of

the complaint.

10. In the instant case, the petitioner's intention to defraud the

complainant is evident from the agreement executed on

24.08.2021. May be, he could not bonafidely execute the sale

deed at the time of first agreement to sell the property on

25.07.2017; but the subsequent act of entering into a compromise

and then turning a flat face towards the complainant is indicative

of petitioner's guilty animus. He has entered into compromise by

paying half the amount only with a view to avoid/postpone the

eminent threat or dispute.

11. The fact as to whether the petitioner has intention to deceive

the complainant right from the inception, in the present factual

backdrop, is also a matter of investigation. The FIR cannot be

quashed on the ground that the petitioner had no intention to

cheat. The petitioner has not even come up with justification not

being able to pay the due amount to the complainant.

12. The petition, therefore, fails.

13. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 199-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)