Avnish Bansal S/O Shri Praveen ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6376 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4229/2019

Avnish Bansal S/o Shri Praveen Bansal, r/o c-110, Garud Marg,
Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (At present lodged in
Central Jail, Jaipur)
                                                                ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.State Of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor.
                                                ---Non-Petitioner
2.Dalpat Singh Naruka, s/o Shri Rajendra Singh, r/o D-180, Ram
Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
                                            ----Complainant-Non-Petitioner


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. S.S. Hora, Adv. with Mr. Gunjan
                               Pathak, Ms. Ishita Rawat, Mr. Aditya
                               Bohra
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. G.S. Rathore GA Cum AAG

Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

Order Reserved on :: 22.9.2022 Order Pronounced on :: 28.9.2022

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.211/2019 registered at Police Station Vaishali

Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471

& 120B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

been wrongly implicated in this case. Complainant-respondent

No.2 lodged the present FIR with an ulterior motive after

inordinate delay of 9 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that a bare reading of the FIR reveals that contents of the

FIR are bundle of lies. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that complainant wrongly mentioned that he had entered into

(2 of 8) [CRLMP-4229/2019]

business relationship for the first time in the year 2010 with the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

prior to this venture complainant had executed two partnership

deed one in 2008 and second in 2010 named as Anukriti Build

Estate and M/s Anukriti Infra Projects. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that partnership deed was executed between

the petitioner and complainant & other persons on 25.8.2010 in

the name of Anukriti Builders and Developers in which land which

was belonged to the complainant was taken for development in

the name of "The Empyrean" in which share of the petitioner was

only 20%; share of the complainant was 60% and share of

Manvendra Singh who was brother-in-law of complainant and his

share was 20%. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

power of attorney was executed in the name of the petitioner by

the complainant on 8.11.2010 for facilitating development of the

project. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

complainant in malicious manner lodged the present FIR against

the petitioner at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur on

11.4.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sister

of the complainant has filed a partition suit against the

complainant. At that time, complainant retired from the

partnership on 31.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that complainant wrongly levelled the allegation against

the petitioner that petitioner had created forged documents

regarding his retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that for execution of the retirement deed, complainant

had purchased the stamp and also got registered the retirement

deed before the Sub Registrar. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that JDA lodged the FIR against the partnership firm as

(3 of 8) [CRLMP-4229/2019]

FIR No.397/2014 in complainant categorically stated that he had

retired from the partnership deed and he got the anticipatory bail

on this account. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

this FIR, during inquiry, complainant clearly stated that he had

retired from Anukriti Builders and Developers on December 2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after the

retirement holding of the petitioner did not change because share

of the complainant was merged in favour of his brother-in-law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that during

investigation, Investigating Officer had put the white fluid on the

signature of the complainant and forged signature of the

complainant was done below word partner. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that after the retirement of the

complainant, complainant had filed the Income Tax Returns in

which he had not mentioned the Anukriti Builders and Developers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Investigating

Officer had not rightly investigated the matter and submitted the

charge sheet. So, this court had stayed the proceedings. So, FIR

No.211/2019 as well as proceedings pending before the court

concerned be quashed qua the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgments:- Chandan Ratnaswami v/s K.C.

Palanisamy & Ors.; (2013) 6 SCC 740, Rajiv Thapar & Ors.

v/s Madan Lal Kapoor; (2013) 3 SCC 330, Harshendra

Kumar D. v/s Rebatilata Koley & Ors.; (2011) 3 SCC 351,

Anand K. Mohatta v/s State; 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2447,

Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v/s State of Bihar &

Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 712, International Advanced Research

Center for Powder Metallurgy & Ne Materials (ARCI) & Ors.

(4 of 8) [CRLMP-4229/2019]

v/s Nimra Cerglass Technics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.; (2016) 1 SCC

348, Sheila Sebastian v/s R. Jawaharaj & Ors.;

MANU/SC/0542/2018, S. Dutt Dr v/s State of U.P.;AIR

1966 SC 523, Parminder Kaur v/s State of UP & Anr.;

(2010) 1 SCC 322, Dr. Vimla v/s Delhi Administration; AIR

1963 SC 1572, Jibrial Diwan v/s State of Maharashtra

(1997) 6 SCC 499, Velji Raghavji Patel v/s State of

Maharashtra; AIR 1965 SC 1433, Addanki Narayanappa &

Anr. v/s Bhaskara Krishtappa & 13 Ors.; AIR 1966 SC 1300,

Sunil Siddharthbhai v/s Commissioner of Income Ta (1985)

4 SCC 519.

Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public

Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted after the investigation,

Investigating Officer had found the offences u/s 420, 406, 409,

467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC against the petitioner and co-accused

Manvendra Singh. Learned counsel for the respondent also

submits that petitioner and co-accused had a conspiracy and

prepared the forged retirement deed of the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the respondent submits that documents filed by the

petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. At this stage, charge

sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Petitioner has liberty to

submit the defence evidence at the time of trial. Learned counsel

for the respondent also submits that at this stage, documents

which were filed by the Investigating Officer has to be taken into

consideration. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits

that as per the FSL report, retirement deed did not bear the

signature of the complainant. So, offences against the petitioner

are found proved. So, petition be dismissed.

(5 of 8) [CRLMP-4229/2019]

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

following judgments:-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v/s

Municipal Corporation and Anr.; (1995) 4 SCC 96, State of

Orissa v/s Debendra Nath Padhi; Criminal Appeal Nos.497

of 2001 and 46 of 2004 and SLP (Crl.) No.1912/2003,

Manoj Narain Agrawal v/s Shashi Agrawal and Ors.

(2009)6 SCC 385; Criminal Appeal No.725/2009, Shashi

Agrawal & Anr. v/s State of Uttarakhand and Ors.; Criminal

Appeal Nos.726-27/2009, State of Uttrakhand and Ors v/s

Shashi Agrawal and Ors.; Criminal Appeal Nos.728-

29/2009.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as

well as learned Public Prosecutor.

In the landmark decision of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.

Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], the Apex

court has discussed the scope of powers of High Court to quash

FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in

detail and has determined such instances where FIR/complaint/all

criminal proceedings can be quashed. The relevant part of the

above-mentioned judgment reads as under:

105. 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 formula and to give an exhaustive

(6 of 8) [CRLMP-4229/2019]

list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

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.

In the present case, as per contention of the complainant

that the petitioner and co-accused Manvendra Singh had prepared

the forged retirement deed in the year 2012 and misappropriated

the land and he was not aware of the retirement proceedings. So,

in my considered opinion, these facts are not true because

(7 of 8) [CRLMP-4229/2019]

complainant had purchased the stamp of the retirement deed and

it is also revealed that that Investigating Officer put white fluid on

the signature of Dalpat Singh Naruka on the retirement deed.

After that, his forged signature was done below the word partner.

In the investigation of FIR No.397/2014 complainant gave the

statement that he had retired from the partnership in the year

2012. He was granted anticipatory bail on account of his

retirement. It is admitted position that sister of the complainant

Vishwajyoti Singh has filed the partition suit against Dalpat Singh

Naruka in which he had filed reply and stated that he is no more

partner in Anukriti Builders and Developers. Complainant wrongly

mentioned the fact that he had business deal with the petitioner

first time in the year 2010. As per the partnership deed executed

between the petitioner and complainant, it reveals that they have

business relationship since 2008. Complainant in his Income Tax

Returns had not stated the capital gain from Anukriti Builders and

Developers after his retirement from the partnership firm.

Complainant had given the power of attorney in favour of the

petitioner after the execution of partnership deed dt. 25.8.2010

for execution of business. It is also admitted position that after the

retirement of the complainant, share of the petitioner was not

increased but share of the complainant was merged in the share

of his brother-in-law Manvendra Singh. So, in my considered

opinion, complainant had lodged the present FIR against the

petitioner with ulterior motive and to allow the proceedings

against the petitioner would be abuse of process.

In view of over all discussions and observations made herein

above and guided by the principles laid down in State of

Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra), I am of

(8 of 8) [CRLMP-4229/2019]

this firm view that the present is a fit case which falls within the

parameters laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Therefore,

this court deems it appropriate to allow the criminal misc. petition

and to quash the proceedings that arose out of the FIR impugned.

Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.

No.211/2019 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for

the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC and

all consequential proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof,

are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 78.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)