Suresh Dangi vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 8781 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32443]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 950/2021

1. Suresh Dangi S/o Shri Kuka Ram Dangi, Aged About 39 Years, Eklingpura, Udaipur, District Udaipur.

2. Devi Lal S/o Kana Ji Dangi, Aged About 41 Years, Kanpur Khera, Udaipur, District Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Nand Lal S/o Shri Bhagga Ji, By Caste Meena, R/o Maanpura Lakhawali, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 951/2021

1. Gopal S/o Lalu Ram Ji, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Bheel, r/o Amba Mata Ki Ghati, Titaradi, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur.

2. Dalchand S/o Shri Lalu Ram Ji, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Bheel,r/o Amba Mata Ki Ghati, Titaradi, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur.

3. Gopal S/o Shanker Ji Gameti, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Bheel, R/o Kanpur Khera, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur.

4. Heera Lal S/o Shanker Ji Gameti, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Bheel, R/o Kanpur Khera, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Nand Lal S/o Shri Bhagga Ji, By Caste Meena, R/o Maanpura Lakhawali, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Raj Singh Bhati
                                Mr. Manish Kumar Bhargav on behalf
                                of Mr. D.S. Udawat
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Saleem Mehar, PP



 [2023:RJ-JD:32443]                  (2 of 11)                    [CRLMP-950/2021]


                                Mr. Kalu Lal, HC 941, Police Station
                                Savina, District Udaipur present in
                                person
                                Mr. Laxman Singh Jodha for the
                                complainant



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

                                     Order

20/10/2023

1. The petitioners have filed the present criminal misc. petitions

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.295/2020

registered at Police Savina, District Udaipur for the offence under

Section 420 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the cases are that one Nand Lal has filed a

complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur against the petitioners Suresh

Dangi, Devi Lal, Gopal S/o Lalu Ram, Dalchand, Gopal S/o

Shanker Gameti and Heera Lal stating, inter alia, that the

complainant is having khatedari agricultural land situated at

revenue village Eklingpura, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur. It was

alleged that in the month of August, 2014 accused petitioners

came to the complainant and said that the present market value

of his khatedari agricultural land is very low and asked the

complainant to convert the land use so that the value of your

khatedari agricultural land will be increased. It was alleged that

accused petitioners assured the complainant that they will bear all

the expenses for conversion of land use but for the said purpose

complainant was asked to come to Udaipur to sign some papers in

the government department. It was also assured that at the

beginning accused-petitioners will pay some part amount to the

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

complainant. It was also assured that after conversion of the land

use, we will decide the value of the land and pay you accordingly.

It was assured that after demarcation and selling the plots, 50%

amount will be paid to complainant. The complainant under the

assurance and belief of accused-petitioners gave consent for

converting the land use into residential purpose. Upon consent,

the accused petitioners paid a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the

complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to transfer

the said land in the name of the accused-petitioners, as they were

facing great hardship in converting the land use into residential.

As the complainant was under belief of accused-petitioners, gave

consent for initiating such proceedings.

3. It was alleged that on 30.09.2014 the accused-petitioners

came to complainant's house and said that they will have to go to

Udaipur for initiating the proceedings. Thereafter, complainant

alongwith accused-petitioners came to Udaipur, where accused-

petitioners already got the stamp papers typed and took the

signatures of complainant on the stamp papers. It was alleged

that the complainant was asked to submit the aforesaid papers to

the Officer by saying that complainant has received

Rs.22,01,000/- in cash and some cheques of Gopal's account and

assured that the amount will be paid in complainant's account.

4. It was alleged that on 30.09.2014 after appearing in the

Govt. Office and signing the papers, when complainant submitted

two Cheques bearing Nos.552812 and 552813 in the bank for

encashment, the same were dishonoured. Thereafter complainant

went to the accused-petitioners and said that he has not received

any amount from cheques, then accused-petitioners gave

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

assurance that soon after conversion they will pay the amount. It

was alleged that till July, 2016 complainant was paid a total sum

of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

5. It was alleged that in the month of June, 2017 complainant

came to know that the accused-petitioners on 30.09.2014 got the

khatedari land of complainant transferred in their name and also

came to know that the said land was purchased by accused-

petitioners with the consideration amount of Rs. 77,01,000/-, out

of which, Rs. 22,01,000/- has been paid in cash to the

complainant and remaining amount of consideration will be paid

through cheques.

6. It was alleged that when accused-petitioners have not made

any further payment, complainant alongwith Shivraj Singh

Shaktawat went to Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, where he

came to know that the land use of some part of the said land has

already been converted for residential purpose in the month of

January, 2019. It was alleged that the accused-petitioners by

making conspiracy and committing fraud got the khatedari land of

complainant transferred in their name and fraudulently got the

sale deed executed in their favour. Thereafter complainant

submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police,

Udaipur but no action was taken on that complaint.

7. On account of filing a complaint before the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur an FIR No.295/2020 has been

registered at Savina Police Station, District Udaipur for the offence

under Section 420 IPC against the accused-petitioners.

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

complainant has lodged the false FIR after a lapse of more than

six years without giving any explanation about the inordinate

delay. It is further submitted that the sale deed was executed in

the year 2014 and the FIR was lodged on 16.12.2020. It is

submitted that the accused petitioners signed the sale deed as

attesting witnesses and they have neither cheated complainant

nor the beneficiaries of the alleged transaction. The narration of

the FIR itself indicates that the registered sale deed was executed

between the complainant Nand Lal and other co-accused viz.

Gopal, Dalchand, Gopal S/o Shanker Ji and Heera Lal and in lieu of

the transaction complainant has received cheques amounting to

Rs.77,01,000/-, therefore, the actual beneficiaries are other co-

accused and petitioners have nothing to do with the sale of the

alleged property. It is further submitted that the FIR does not

disclose any act of the accused petitioners or other participation in

the commission of the crime. The basic ingredients of the alleged

offences are missing in the present case and civil dispute has been

given colour of criminal act. The petitioners have not committed

any offence. They have neither prepared the false document nor

cheated the complainant, therefore, the misc. petitions may be

allowed and proceedings against the accused petitioners for the

offence under Section 420 IPC may be quashed.

9. In support of the arguments learned counsel for the

petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

rendered in Criminal Appeal No.581/2023 : Sarabjit Kaur vs. The

State of Punjab & Anr.

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant has

vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for

the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the misc. petitions. He

further argued that the petitioners alongwith the other co-accused

assured the complainant for converting the agricultural land and

under the assurance of the accused that the land would be

converted in his name signed the alleged sale deed.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant put

reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of K. Jagdish vs.

Udaya Kumar G.S. & Anr. : 2021 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1246.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

13. It is a settled law that powers conferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. are exceptional and can be invoked by this Court to prevent

abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Further, there

can be no doubt concerning the position that jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and

sparingly. To wit, the exercise of the said power must secure the

ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that

power may result in the abuse of the process of law. Section 482

is designed to ensure that criminal proceedings are not permitted

to generate weapons of harassment.

14. In Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. : (2013)

11 SCC 673 Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:-

"7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court."

15. Hon'ble the Apex Court, in State of Haryana vs Chaudhri

Bhajanlal and Ors. : A.I.R. 1992 SC 604 laid down the following

guidelines about quashing the F.I.R. and interfering with the

investigation:-

"(a) 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;

(b) 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;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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;

(d) 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;

(e) where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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;

(f) 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;

(g) 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."

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

16. On the touchstone of the aforesaid settled tenets, it has to

be seen whether the F.I.R. instituted by the complainant falls

within the ambit of abuse of process of law, and to secure ends of

justice, it is necessary to intervene and pass an appropriate order.

The F.I.R. primarily states that petitioners Gopal s/o Lalu,

Dlchand, Gopal s/o Shankar and Heera Lal assured the

complainant that they would jointly sell the disputed land after

getting it converted and pay fifty per cent of its share to the

complainant. Thus, the petitioners persuaded the complainant to

sign the papers on the pretext of delivering the complainant his

share and grabbing his land. It further conveys that the accused

petitioners assured the complainant that the conversion of land

might take significant time, and it would be difficult for the

complainant to get the land converted; therefore, if the disputed

land gets sold in the petitioners' name, they will proceed to get its

conversion.

17. Admittedly, from the plain perusal of the F.I.R., it is

noticeable that complainant Nand Lal executed the sale deed in

favour of petitioners Gopal s/o Lalu, Dlchand, Gopal s/o Shankar

and Heera Lal in the year 30.9.2014. The complainant in the F.I.R.

also concedes that he received advance consideration, presented

himself before the Registration Authority, and executed the sale

deed. The F.I.R. also stated that before the presenting officer, the

complainant accepted the execution of the sale deed and the

receipt of the consideration amount. The sale deed bears the

signatures of the above four petitioners and the complainant. It is

also narrated in the F.I.R. that the complainant received two lacs

in 2016. The F.I.R. also states that after enquiring from the official

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

record, the complainant learned that in June 2017, the said land

was recorded in the name of the petitioners above from

30.09.2014. The F.I.R. also narrates that in January 2019, the

complainant learned from the record that the U.I.T. Udaipur had

sanctioned the scheme after allowing the conversion of the

disputed land in the name of the above petitioners.

The complainant alleges that the petitioners had duped him and

did not pay the consideration after getting the sale deed executed

in their names. The F.I.R. also states that Cheques bearing

Nos.552812 and 552813 (As mentioned in the Sale Deed) were

dishonoured, and he received two lacs afterwards. The F.I.R. also

states that the complainant did not receive the sale consideration

except for rupees six lacs.

18. A bare perusal of the above facts suggests that the

complainant knowingly sold his agricultural land to the above

petitioners. Despite knowing that the land got converted and

recorded and U.I.T. Udaipur sanctioned the scheme on the

disputed land in January 2019, the complainant took no legal

steps to enforce the promise. The delay of six years in lodging the

F.I.R. and the non-explanation of such delay itself indicates that

the criminal proceedings were initiated with ulterior motives. The

narration in the F.I.R. about executing the sale deed on

30.09.2014, presenting it before the registration authority,

admitting recital of the sale deed, signing the sale deed, receiving

consideration amount of four lacks, and afterwards the dishonour

of two cheques (As mentioned in the sale deed), non-payment of

consideration amount up to 2017, receiving rupees two lakhs after

executing the sale deed, non-action to enforce the promise despite

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

knowing the fact that the disputed land stand converted in the

names of petitioners, suggests that the complainant has resorted

to a criminal process to settle its financial dispute.

19. Hon'ble Apex court, in the catena of judgments, has held

that when criminal law is used in the backdrop of civil disputes,

and it is apparent that the proceedings are instituted with ulterior

motives, it amounts to gross abuse of process.

The criminal law process cannot be initiated merely to settle a civil

dispute.

20. In the backdrop of the above, after perusing the F.I.R, it

does not emerge that the petitioners named above had duped the

complainant and further assured him to jointly sell the disputed

land after getting it converted and pay fifty per cent of its share to

the complainant.

21. Regarding the case of petitioners Suresh Dangi and Devilal,

they are witnesses to the alleged sale deed. Thus, it is evident

that the petitioners are neither beneficiaries nor committed any

gainful loss to the complainant. The contents of the F.I.R. do not

convey that the accused petitioners, Suresh and Devilal, cheated

the complainant with dishonest intentions to get the property

transferred and converted in the purchaser's name. Even if the

allegations against the petitioners are taken at their face value

and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute

any offence or make out a case against them. It's a settled legal

position that criminal proceedings can be quashed when the

complaint or the F.I.R. registered does not disclose any act of the

accused or their participation in the crime.

[2023:RJ-JD:32443] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-950/2021]

22. The judgment rendered in K. Jagdish (supra) relied upon by

the learned counsel of the complainant; the facts were entirely

different. In that case, it was alleged that the accused forcefully

obtained the complainant's signatures on the sale deed, and the

consideration amount remained unpaid. Because of the peculiar

circumstances, the apex court set aside the order of the Karnataka

High Court, quashing the F.I.R.

23. In the instant case, the events are entirely different. On

perusing the facts, it is apparent that the petitioners were

witnesses to the sale deed and did not receive any monetary

advantage. They have neither forged documents nor induced the

complainant to execute the alleged sale deed.

24. The upshot to the above is that Criminal Miscellaneous

Petitions bearing Nos. 950/2021 and 951/2021 are allowed, and

consequently, registration of FIR No. 295/2020 dated 16.12.2020

at Savina Police Station, District Udaipur against the petitioners

herein and all further proceedings based on qua the petitioners

are quashed and set aside.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J AK Chouhan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)