Rajasthan High Court
K.K. Sharma S/O Shri Devendra Nath vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:34969) on 20 August, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:34969]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4840/2024
K.K. Sharma S/o Shri Devendra Nath, Abhinav Architects,
D35/36, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dr. Shashikant Saini S/o Late Shri Bhanwarlal Saini, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o M.no. 123, Vrindawan Vihar, Dcm
Ajmer Road, Police Station Shyamnagar, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat with
Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
20/08/2024
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Misc.
Petition and further be pleased to quash and set
aside the FIR No. 485/2023 registered at police
station, Shyam Nagar-South, Jaipur under Section
420, 406 IPC.
Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble High
Court may deem fit and proper, be also passed."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the factual background of the instant matter is that
the petitioner is a renowned architect/contractor. The controversy
arose when the complainant lodged the impugned FIR dated
10.10.2023 bearing No. 485/2023, U/S 420, 406 IPC at Police
Station, Shayam Nagar, Jaipur. The allegations leveled against the
[2024:RJ-JP:34969] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4840/2024]
petitioner were that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 executed
an agreement dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure-2), for construction of
house. The said agreement expounded an arbitration clause which
might be invoked in case of any dispute. Shri Om Prakash Agrawal
was appointed as the arbitrator.
3. In light of the agreement dated 13.08.2021, the petitioner as
well as the arbitrator have exhorted the complainant to fulfill the
conditions of the agreement and complete the agreed construction
work. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner thereafter
performed his duties as per the agreement; the construction is
already complete and the respondent No. 2 is already residing in
the said property. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned FIR is
lodged merely to harass the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that vide order dated 19.12.2023, the anticipatory bail application
of the petitioner was dismissed. Subsequently, the bail application
before the High Court was withdrawn.
5. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the ratio
encapsulated in AIR 2023 SC 1814 titled as State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Shilpa Jain, and has submitted that when the
genesis of the dispute emanates from civil proceedings, however,
the same is registered as criminal dispute, the same ought not to
have been scuttled at the threshold, and in fact ought to be
considered on its own merits, in accordance with law.
6. Upon a perusal of the record, considering the arguments
averred by the learned counsel for the parties, and taking note of
the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court at this juncture, deems
[2024:RJ-JP:34969] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4840/2024]
it apposite to note down certain undisputed facts of the instant
matter:
6.1 That the petitioner is an architect/contractor, who provides
services of construction of buildings, houses etc.
6.2 That the parties herein, entered into an agreement dated
13.08.2021, wherein, the terms and conditions qua the said
construction is spelled out. Clause 26 of the said agreement,
categorically states that any dispute shall be adjudicated via
arbitrator, and Shri Om Prakash Agrawal was appointed as the
arbitrator.
6.3 That the contents of the FIR state that there is non-
construction of a specified portion of the house/said construction
and exceeded payment qua the petitioner. Nevertheless, at this
juncture, the same prima facie appears fallacious.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter in
toto, and taking special note of the fact that the FIR and the
dispute in hand pertains to civil jurisprudence, it can be inferred
that the police authorities have wrongly contemplated the instant
dispute. Moreover, in presence of an arbitration clause in the
agreement, the instant FIR is not tenable.
8. Upon scanning of the judgment cited by the respondents it is
noted that Shilpa Jain (Supra) is of distinguishable factual
matrix, as the matter in hand categorically states the mode of
settlement as arbitration, and no such provision has been
expounded in the cited dictum.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court deems it
appropriate to allow the instant petition. As a result FIR No.
[2024:RJ-JP:34969] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4840/2024]
485/2023, registered at Police Station Shayam Nagar, Jaipur with
all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
