Lal Chand S/O Sh. Deva Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6267 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8279/2021

Lal Chand S/o Sh. Deva Ram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village
And Post Shishyu, Police Station Ranoli District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.     Ballu Ram S/o Sh. Deva Ram, R/o Village And Post
       Shishyu, Police Station Ranoli District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, PP Mr. Ishwar Tiwari, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 16.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 20.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR

No.216/2021 dated 14.07.2021 registered at Police Station Ranoli,

District Sikar for the Offences Punishable under Sections 420, 406

and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent

No.2 is real brother of the petitioner. Petitioner had borrowed

money of Rs.10,000/- from respondent No.2 in the year 1993 but

he had returned the same but due to illiteracy, he had not taken

receipt of payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that petitioner had asked to the respondent No.2 for

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-8279/2021]

returning of agreement but respondent No.2 told him that he

would destroyed it but he had not destroyed the said document

and filed the present FIR with mala-fide intention. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that a bare reading of the FIR does

not disclose of any offence against the petitioner. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that by making a false and

fabricated document dated 03.09.1995, respondent No.2 had filed

an application before Court of Collector (Stamp) Sikar-Division on

05.10.2020. In the said proceeding, petitioner had not engaged

any Advocate for his defense. Respondent No.2 had got the order

dated 18.02.2021 by the learned Court of Collector Stamp by

collusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

respondent No.2 had lodged the present FIR with ulterior motive

and also submitted that petitioner had sold the land to Subhash

Kumar Jakhar by sale deed dated 16.04.2021. So, FIR lodged

against the petitioner be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned

Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after

investigation, Investigating Officer had found the offence(s) under

Section 420 and 406 IPC proved against the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioner had sold

the disputed land to complainant-respondent on 01.02.1993 and

got payment of Rs.10,000/- and he had executed the stamp on

03.09.1995. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted

that respondent had filed the petition before the Collector Stamp,

Sikar for impounding of stamp in which petitioner had engaged his

lawyer. After hearing both the parties, Collector Stamp had

ordered to deposit the deficit stamp and complainant had

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-8279/2021]

deposited the stamp as per the order. Learned counsel for the

respondent also submitted that petitioner wrongly sold the

disputed land to Subhash Kumar Jakhar. Learned counsel for the

respondent also submitted that petitioner had cheated the

respondent. So, petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

judgment of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous

(Petition) No.6136/2019 (Satish Badaya Vs. State of

Rajasthan) decided on 24.02.2021.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that petitioner had sold the

disputed land to the respondent on 01.02.1993 and also executed

the stamp on 03.09.1995. After that, complainant had impounded

the stamp before Collector Stamp in which petitioner also

participated in the proceedings. Petitioner had wrongly sold the

disputed land to Subhash Kumar Jakhar. After investigation,

Investigating Officer had also found the offence(s) under Section

420 and 406 IPC proved against the petitioner. So, in my

considered opinion, no ground is made out for quashment of the

FIR. So, the present petition being devoid of merits and liable to

be dismissed.

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands

dismissed.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /55

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)