Rajasthan High Court
Ismaile Son Of Allaudin Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6780/2022
Ismaile Son Of Allaudin Khan, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of
Hariram Ji Ka Chowk Mira Gate, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Ishaq Mohammad Son Of Rasool Mohammad, Resident Of
Mordipada, Tehsil Bundi, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madho Prapan Swami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
Judgment reserved on : 07/09/2022
Date of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022
1. The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No.
354/2022 registered with Police Station Sadar, Bundi for offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 470 IPC.
2. The challenge is on the ground that a pure civil dispute has
been attempted to be coloured as a criminal offence as such, the
impugned FIR and its continuance would be an abuse of the
process of law.
3. Undisputed facts of the case is that the petitioner and Anil
Kumar Shukla & Raghunandan were forming a partnership
business. The three partners entered into an agreement dated
13.3.1989 for purchase of 9 bighas out of 17 bighas and 12
biswas of Khasra No. 921 in village Chatrapura District Bundi from
its rightful owner Puran and others, all sons of Khema. At the time
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6780/2022]
of agreement, part consideration money was paid to the vendors
and possession on the transferred land was handed over to the
petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner on payment of full
consideration money to the vendors, got registered power of
attorneys dated 11.5.89 and 30.8.89 from the vendors whereby
the vendors authorizes the petitioner even to sale the property
which was subject matter of agreement above. On 8.3.1990, the
partnership was dissolved and as per the document of dissolution,
the remaining part of the purchased plot and some other things
were assigned to the share of the petitioner.
4. According to the petitioner on 1.8.2021, the petitioner saw
that some construction work was going on the said land. On
inquiry, the petitioner gathered that on 4.1.2000, the venders of
the petitioner had sold the land given to the petitioner to one
Trilok Chand. Thereafter, Trilok Chand sold the same property to
Vimlesh Soni, Yogita Sharma, Balwir Kaur, Kamal Kaur and Kamla
Bai on 4.1.2006. The new purchasers Vimlesh Soni and others
sold the said property to the informant of this case on 8.7.2021.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed civil Suit No. 8/2021 in the Court of
Senior Civil Judge, Bundi against his vendors Puran Chand and
others as well as subsequent purchasers. On the prayer by
respondent No.2, in the civil suit, respondent No.2 was added as
defendant No.18. The civil Court passed an order of temporary
injunction in favour of the petitioner on 12.1.2022. When the
subsequent purchasers attempted to encroach upon the land of
the petitioner, the petitioner filed FIR No. 168/2022 registered
with Police Station Sadar, Bundi.
5. Thereafter, the impugned FIR No. 354/2022 was registered
on 18.7.2022 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 470
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6780/2022]
IPC. According to FIR, when petitioner failed to pay the sale
consideration money, the vendors of the petitioner cancelled the
agreement to sale between the parties dated 13.3.1989.
Thereafter the vendor sold the same land on 4.1.2000 to Trilok
Chand. On 4.1.2006, Trilok Chand sold it to Smt. Vimlesh Soni &
ors and on 8.7.2021 Vimlesh Soni and others sold it to respondent
No.2 for rupees seven crorers and fifty one lacs.
6. The narration of aforesaid facts discloses a case of pure civil
dispute between the parties. However, it is alleged in the
impugned FIR that the stamp paper on which agreement dated
13.3.1989 between the petitioner and his vendors was executed
was in fact, not purchased on 13.3.1989 or before that, rather it
was purchased from Narendra Kumar Sharma, in the year 1990 as
such the document was a false document.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Madho Prapan Swami
submits that once the informant admits about agreement between
the petitioner and his vendors, in the impugned FIR itself, and
alleges its subsequent cancellation, the informant cannot be
allowed to allege that the agreement paper was a sham paper.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan
opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the general principle that
if the FIR discloses cognizable offence, it should not be quashed at
the threshold as well as on the ground that a civil dispute is not
bar for criminal prosecution if the ingredients of cognizable offence
are disclosed.
9. As referred above, the respondent has admitted agreement
between the petitioner and his vendor dated 13.3.1989 to sale the
same property, therefore, it cannot be argued that the agreement
was executed on a paper purchased subsequently. Evidently, the
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6780/2022]
informant has attempted to give, a pure civil dispute, a colour of
criminal prosecution just to pressurize the petitioner in the
pending civil suit which cannot be allowed. The FIR does not
disclose a cognizable offence much less the offences alleged.
Therefore, the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings
arising out of the same stands hereby quashed and this petition is
allowed.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/84
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
