Rajasthan High Court
Jitendra Kumar Meena S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5591/2022
1. Jitendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Lallu Ram Meena, R/o
Village Chandpur, Tehsil Lalsoth, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Lallu Ram Meena S/o Shri Gopal Meena, R/o Village
Dopur, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Laxman Singh S/o Shri Shrinarayan, R/o Village
Dhamasya, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Suresh Meena S/o Shri Gopal Meena, R/o Bansko Phatak,
Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur (East) (Raj.)
4. S.h.o. P.s. Bassi, Jaipur (East) (Raj.)
5. Investigation Officer, In The F.i.r. Bearing No. 251/2020
Registered At Bassi, Distt. Jaipur (East) (Raj.)
6. Shri Mohan Lal Meena son of Shri Ram Narayan Meena,
aged about 47 years, R/o Village Khori, Tehsil Bassi, Distt.
Jaipur (Raj.)
--Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta
Mr. Sumer Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
Mr. Manish Kumar Meena for
Mr. Mahendra Shandilya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment reserved on : 07/09/2022
Date of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022
1. This petition is for quashing of FIR No. 251/2020 registered
with Bassi Police Station District Jaipur (East), for offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5591/2022]
2. The FIR has been challenged on the ground that a pure civil
dispute between the parties has been sought to be given a colour
of criminal offence which should not be allowed.
3. The backdrop of the case is that the petitioners claim to have
entered into an agreement to purchase half of 15 bighas of plot
No. 46 situated in village Nimora from Ramnarayan Meena, the
father of complainant respondent No.6 Mohanlal Meena. The said
agreement papers bears signature of the complainant also as
witness. The case of the petitioners is that the total consideration
money agreed was Rs. 57,28,050 (Rs. Fifty Seven Lacs Twenty
Eight thousand & Fifty only). Out of that Rs. 52,83,050 (Rs. Fifty
Two lacs eighty three thousand and fifty) was paid by the
petitioners to the father of the complainant in cash and the
remaining amount of Rs. 4,45,000/- was paid through RTGS.
4. Ramnarayan died on 6.2.2020, thereafter the petitioners got
the agreement registered on 28.3.2022.
5. The case of the complainant respondents is that in fact,
Ramnarayan was in need of loan of Rs. 5 lacs and on 23.12.2015,
Ramnarayan executed a document in favour of petitioners which is
Annexure 6/1. In the said document, it is specifically mentioned
that Ramnarayan would return Rs. 5 lacs till 23.2.2016 and blank
unsigned cheques were handed over to the petitioners to ensure
repayment. It is mentioned in the said document that if the
cheque bounces, the petitioners would have right to recover from
movable and immovable property of Ramnarayan.
6. In the FIR, it is alleged that under a conspiracy, the
petitioners created forged document of agreement to sale taking
advantage of the illiteracy of Ramnarayan. It is also a fact that
the petitioners transferred Rs. 4,45,000/- in the Bank account of
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5591/2022]
Ramnarayan and when asked about non transferring the entire 5
lacs, the petitioners stated that the remaining amount would be
adjusted against the interest accruing on the aforesaid money.
The FIR specifically states that Ramnarayan never had any
intention to sale his property nor any conscious sale transaction
was there between the parties.
7. After hearing the parties at length, this Court finds that it
would be subject matter of investigation as to why and from
where more than 85% of consideration money was paid in cash. It
would also be required to be investigated that if the entire
consideration money was paid on the date of agreement itself,
why the sale deed was not registered till death of Ramnarayan and
what necessitated the agreement to sale being registered after
death of Ramnarayan. Two documents of the same day dated
23.12.2015 are on the records. Both the documents are said to
be executed by the same person. One party admits the
correctness of one document and another denies its correctness
rather asserts correctness of another document, therefore, it
would be subject matter of investigation as to which of the
documents was false one.
8. Therefore, in my view, this is not a case wherein the FIR
should be scuttled at the threshold especially when the FIR prima
facie discloses commission of cognizable offence.
9. Therefore, this petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/81
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
