Ramdev Deval vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 2173 Raj

[2022/RJJD/030432]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2195/2021

1. Islamdeen S/o Shri Mehardin, Aged About 50 Years, Ward No. 1, Pokhran, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer.

2. Rajkumar Paliwal S/o Shri Badrilal, Aged About 45 Years, Pokhran, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Kaan Singh S/o Lal Singh, Village Pratappura, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. Smt. Durga Devi W/o Shri Kaan Singh, Village Pratappura, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1024/2019 Ramdev Deval S/o Labhu Ram Deval, Aged About 61 Years, 2/97 Kk Colony, Basni Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Kaan Singh S/o Lal Singh, Village Pratappura, Teh Pokhran, Dist Jaisalmer

3. Durga Devi Spouse/o Kaan Singh, Village Pratappura Teh Pokhran, Dist Jaisalmer

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bharti, PP Mr. Sumer Singh, SI PS, Pokran District Jaisalmer.

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI


                                     Order



 [2022/RJJD/030432]                  (2 of 10)                     [CRLMP-2195/2021]


JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                     ::: 14.11.2022


JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON ::: 14.03.2023

The instant Criminal Misc. Petitions have been preferred by

the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR

No.187/2008 registered at P.S. Pokhran, Distt. Jaisalmer for the

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to filing

of impugned FIR No.187/2008, P.S. Pokhran, District Jaisalmer,

the complainant had filed another FIR No.74/2003 at P.S. Pokhran,

Jaisalmer, in which the same set of allegations have been levelled

against him as levelled in the instant FIR (No.187/2008). In yet

another FIR No. RC JDH 2007 A 0013/2007 which was lodged at

P.S. Superintendent of Police, Central Investigation Bureau,

Jodhpur before lodging of FIR No. 187/2008, at the behest of

Chairman, Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank, similar allegations have been

levelled. In FIR No. RC JDH 2007 A 0013/2007, the police had

filed negative final report before the Court concerned, therefore,

the petitioners have filed the instant Misc. Petition to quash the

proceedings arising out of FIR No.187/2008. It is submitted by

counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in between the parties

has been resolved through an amicable settlement by an affidavit

dated 23.04.2017 and a written letter dated 23.04.2017 was also

sent to the IO to inform about the same. Now, there remains no

controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to

continue the criminal proceedings any further.

[2022/RJJD/030432] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-2195/2021]

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned

Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on

record.

For the purpose of examination and scrutiny, it is felt

appropriate to go through the contents of previous two FIRs and

their result as well as the contents of the FIR impugned.

The brief facts as per the first FIR bearing No. 074/2003 lodged

at the behest of respondent No.2 Kaan Singh are that it was alleged

that on 26.03.2002, the complainant attempted to obtain a loan

from Thar Aanchalik Gramin Bank, Pokhran, for the amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- by making a down payment of Rs. 61,000/-. The

bank approved the loan and the payment was made with cheque

no. 145709 issued in the name of M/s Asian Agro Sales. The

cheque No. 145709 was cashed by M/s Asian Agro Sales. The

aforementioned firm did not provide the complainant with the

tractor and the complainant filed an FIR on 02.05.2003 at Police

Station Pokhran against Shri Illias Khan, M/s Asian Agro Sales

firm's owner, in accordance with Sections 406 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code. The trial has been concluded and vide

judgment dated 01.09.2010, the accused- Illias Khan has been

convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and

has been sentenced with maximum of five years of rigorous

imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 7,00,000/- as well as under

Section 406 of IPC and has been sentenced with maximum of one

year of rigorous imprisonment.

The brief facts as per the Second Report bearing FIR No. RC

JDH 2007 A 0013/2007 lodged by the Chairman, Jaipur Thar

[2022/RJJD/030432] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-2195/2021]

Gramin Bank on 24.11.2007 are that the bank manager of the

Thar Aanchalik Gramin Bank in Pokhran, Sh. Ramdev Deval, used

his position for inappropriate gains. He was involved in a criminal

conspiracy with M/s Asian Agro Sales, causing additional

malfeasance to the bank. The complainant requested for the loan

which was sanctioned by the then manager Ramdev Deval for the

amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a tractor.

The manager using his official position knowingly allowed the firm

to withdraw the loan without following the set procedure resulting

in an unwarranted loss to the bank and an unlawful gain to the

enterprise. The agricultural land required a mortgage deed to be

created but R.D. Deval purposefully did not follow the prescribed

process and further permitted the company to withdraw the loan

amount. Sh. Illyas Khan (proprietor) failed to deliver the tractor to

the complainant and Mr. Deval failed to obtain the charge being

created on the loanees' agricultural land. Moreover, it was

discovered that the corporation had opened an account in the

bank only for the purpose of receiving payments for tractor loans.

It is crystal clear from the negative final report no. 05/2008

filed by the CBI on 11.08.2008 in the second FIR that no case was

made out against Sh. R.D. Deval as it is shown that the loan was

sanctioned by R.D. Deval, however, in fact, the loan was

sanctioned by S.K.Mundra, the then General manager of the bank

on 26.03.2002 at the head office level, after following the due

procedure as specified by the bank, that too after evaluation and

processing of the relevant loan documents by Mahesh Chandra

Gupta and Anjum Parvej, the officers of bank, posted at head

[2022/RJJD/030432] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-2195/2021]

office Jodhpur. Regarding the second claim that R.D. Deval failed

to create a mortgage on the loanees' agricultural land, it was

found during investigation that R.D. Deval had written to the Sub-

Registrar, Pokaran on the same day the loan was disbursed on

28.03.2002, requesting the creation of charges on the loanees'

agricultural land, though this could only be done in 2007. After

receiving permission from the borrowers for this purpose, the

cheque for the loan amount was issued in favour of the mentioned

company by the bank. It is also untrue that the account was only

formed in the name of the aforementioned firm at the Pokaran

Branch to receive these tractor loans; a current account was

opened in this firm's name in 2001 and the loan in question was

approved in March 2002 and there were no new and substantial

facts on the basis of which a subsequent FIR would have

succeeded. The negative final report has been submitted by the

investigating agency in the lower court which was accepted by the

Judge, CBI cases vide order dated 01.02.2011.

Finally, the brief facts of the third report, that is the

impugned FIR bearing No. 187/2008, lodged by the Complainant

on 02.09.2008 are that even after repeated intimidation to Illiyas

Khan, he makes no attempt to deliver the tractor to the

complainant. The bank eventually started pressurizing the

complainant to finish the mortgage deed creation process

because, in their opinion, the bank had already made the

payment. However, the complainant informed the bank manager

that he would finish the process as soon as the tractor was

delivered. Later, the complainant filed a lawsuit under sections 406

[2022/RJJD/030432] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-2195/2021]

and 420 of IPC. According to the complainant, the bank manager

sold his piece of land measuring 74*15 bigha by forcibly obtaining

his wife's signature in the presence of two witnesses. These two

witnesses were also made accused in this FIR and it has been

alleged that they were also part of the conspiracy along with the

manager Ramdev Deval. Furthermore, he created a fraudulent

mortgage document for a period of 5 years in Durga Devi's name

(wife of complainant) on 28.08.2008 and afterwards, in absence of

the complainant and his wife, changed the date of the said

document to 28.03.2005, whereas the actual date should have

been 31.07.2005.

In the FIR No. 187/2008 a negative final report has been

filed by the IO with the conclusion that the matter is purely of civil

nature, however, the Trial Court did not accept the same and

directed the investigating agency for further investigation of the

case.

It is manifesting from the elucidation of the contents of the

three FIRs as well as the Final Report that the parties, the details

of the alleged incident, the facts of the alleged incident and the

cause of action of the impugned FIR and the two FIRs filed at

earlier instances are the same but the facts have just been

narrated with slight differences and exaggerations each time. It

seems that the complainant is persistent and he retold the same

things time and again. It would not be justifiable to lodge a fresh

report on the basis of different narrative of the same incident

every time. The truth, substance and assertion in the first FIR No.

[2022/RJJD/030432] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-2195/2021]

74/2003 and the FIR No. 187/2008 are same and the persons

made accused in FIR No. 187/2008 could have been roped in as

accused within the scope of investigation conducted in pursuance

of first FIR No. 47/2003 and there was no need to file a

subsequent FIR.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs.

State of Kerala reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637 has observed

that the subsequent FIR on the same contents is nothing but an

abuse of process of law. The relevant paragraphs of the same are

reproduced as under:-

"From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154 155156 157 162 169 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer incharge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narangs' case (supra) it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further

[2022/RJJD/030432] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-2195/2021]

investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution."

A bare perusal of all the three FIRs makes it abundantly clear

that the truth; substance; nature of accusation and the cause of

action of previous and present FIRs are same, therefore, in view

of the judgment passed in T.T Antony (supra) and the

observations made herein above, this Court is inclined to interfere

in the course of investigation.

The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably

and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have

jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offences alleged in

this matter are non-compoundable, however, Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in

(2012) 10 SCC 303 has propounded that if it is convinced that

offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the

public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such

proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace

and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not

[2022/RJJD/030432] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-2195/2021]

hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers

vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution

becomes the lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame

prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also

unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. This

court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court and feels that when the dispute is essentially inter

se between the parties, either they are relatives; neighbours or

having business relationship and which does not affect the society

at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious

relationship between two sides and for restitution of relationship

and with a view to end-up the dispute in between them

permanently, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to

quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated

thereto.

In view of the above observations and taking into account

the fact that the present one is the successive FIR of the earlier

incident, though the offences are not compoundable but the

parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in

between the parties which is not affecting public peace and

tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to

resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, this court feels

that continuance of the investigation in impugned FIR would surely

amount to an abuse of process of law, therefore, to prevent the

same, the Misc. Petitions are allowed and the impugned FIR is

quashed.

[2022/RJJD/030432] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-2195/2021]

Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous petitions are allowed.

The FIR No.187/2008 registered at the Police Station Pokaran,

District Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471 & 120-B IPC and proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof

are quashed and set aside. The SHO concerned is directed to

prepare a closure report and he shall submit the same before the

Magistrate concerned within a period of thirty days from the date

of receipt of this order.

Accordingly, the Miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of.

The stay petitions also stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 105/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)