Majestic Properties Pvt Ltd And ... vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6380 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 868/2011

1. Majestic Properties (Pvt) Ltd. Having their registered office at
1/18B, asaf ali road, new delhi-110002, through its authorized
signatory shri prashant sharma, son of shri s. n. Sharma,
resident of a-34, shivaji marg, nehru nagar, jaipur (Rajasthan).


2. Mr. Anurag gupta, managing director; majestic properties pvt.
Ltd, 1/18B, asaf ali road, new delhi-110002.


3. Mr. Prashant Sharma, son of shri s n sharma, resident of a-34,
shivaji marg, nehru nagar, jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP.
2. The station house officer (SHO), Police station, jaipur
development authority, J L N marg, jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                               ----Respondents

3. Bhagwan Singh, son of Shri Heera Lal, R/o B-3/1, SBBJ Flats, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

4. Manoj Jain son of Shri Laxmi Narain Jain, R/o House No.756, Jain Mandir Area, Village Lalxmangarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

5. Manoj Bansal son of Shri Subhash Chand Bansal, R/o 282-A, Scheme No.10B, Gopalpura bypass road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

6. Mahima Bansal, wife of Manoj Bansal, r/o 282-A, Scheme No.10B, Gopalpura bypass Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

7. Subhash Chand Bansal, Son of Shri Niranjan Lal Subhash Chand Bansal, R/o 282-A, Scheme No.10B, Gopalpura bypass Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

8. Jyoti singh, wife of Lt. Col. Sandeep singh, R/o C-9/9500, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

9. Ishtiyaq Chaudhary, Son of Shri M.I. Choudhary, R/o B-12 Fatehiba Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

10. Babu Lal Chudla, son of Shri Mahadev Prasad Chudla, R/o 73, Gopinathji-ki-Gali, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

11. Rikhab Chand Jain, s/o Shri Laxmi Narain Jain, R/o B-355A, 10B, Scheme (Rajasthan)

12. Hemant kumar, through SHO (Shri rajendra sharma) PS Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-868/2011]

13. Nitin Bhatnagar, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

14. Manish Kumar, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

15. Mr. Saurabh, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

16. Shakti Sekra, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

17. Satish Chand Singhal, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

18. Yash Makkar, son of Shri S. N. Makkar, R/o 121, Bahawalpur Apartment, Plot No.1, Sector - 4, New Delhi-110075.

---Complainant-respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj, Mr. Anurag Pareek, Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chauhan, Mr. Aniket Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahla, PP.

Mr. Suresh Sahni, Mr. R. M. Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 19.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 28.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR

No.154/2011 dated 04.03.2011 registered at Police Station Jaipur

Development Authority, Jaipur for offence(s) punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the

petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents

wrongly lodged the present FIR against the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the petitioners also submits that a bare reading of the

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-868/2011]

FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioner No.1

Company was in process of development of various projects in

various States. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits

that respondents have an option to cancel their registration and

get the refund from the Company with interest @ 10% P.A.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that previous FIR

No.392/07 was lodged against the petitioner in Police Station

Ashok Nagar, Jaipur in which compromise was arrived between the

parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the

same facts of respondent Nos.3 and 4 lodged an FIRs No.147/08

and 149/08 at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur in which after

investigation, negative final report was filed before the court

concerned and court concerned has accepted the FR filed by the

Investigating Officer and the said order was not challenged by the

respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that

on the same ground, the second and subsequent FIR cannot be

lodged against the petitioners. So, the present FIR filed against

the petitioners be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala

& Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181; (2) Babubhai Vs. State

of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 and (3) Ram

Narayan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B.

Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.3929/2018 decided on

12.05.2022.

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-868/2011]

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondents have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners and submitted that it is an admitted

position that the second FIR was not maintainable. Learned

counsel for the respondents also submitted that court can direct to

investigate the matter alongwith other FIR pending against the

petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted

that after investigation, Investigating Officer had found the

offence(s) under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC against the

petitioners. So, petition is misconceived and liable to be

dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for the respondents.

It is an admitted position that respondent Nos.3 and 4

previously lodged the FIRs No.147/08 and 149/08 against the

petitioners. In these FIRs after investigation, Investigating Officer

has filed the negative final report before the court concerned.

After that, respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a protest petition before

the trial court but trial court had rejected the protest petition and

accepted the FR filed by Investigating Officer. It is also admitted

position that respondents have an option to cancel their

registration and get the refund money with interest @ 10% P.A. In

the present petition, majority of the respondents had received

money advanced given by them and settled their dispute. It is also

admitted position that present FIR lodged by the respondents

after FIRs No.147/08 and 149/08. So, in my considered opinion,

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-868/2011]

second and subsequent FIR is not maintainable on same facts. So,

petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed.

Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The

FIR bearing No.154/2011 registered at Police Station Jaipur

Development Authority, Jaipur is quashed.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin/83

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)