Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and forgery regarding sale of land with advance money. Bench found prima facie offence out and dismissed the petition.
Prayer to quash the FIR was refused and the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11285 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rajesh Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Tandon,Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi (Sr. Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Swetashwa Agarwal
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 10.4.2018 in Case Crime No. 241 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Medical College, District Meerut.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he agreed to sell his certain agricultural plots to the Informant at a cost of Rs. 60 lacks and thereafter he took Rs. 25 lacks as an advance from him after giving him the original copy of the sale deed dated 10.5.2010 of the property in question executed in favour of the petitioner to convince him that he is the actual owner of the property in question. When the Informant asked the Informant to execute the sale deed of the disputed property, he tried to linger on the the same by making false promises and excuses. Thereupon the petitioner enquired about the status of the property in question and came to know that the petitioner has already executed the sale deed in favour of some third person on 4.4.2011, as such, the petitioner demanded his money but he was
assaulted and threatened with dire consequences by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is delay in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has been given with regard to inordinate delay. He further submitted that there is neither any document or agreement showing that the payment of Rs. 25 lacs as alleged by the informant was made to the petitioner. He further submitted that the allegation of assault is not supported by any medical evidence and it was alleged maliciously in the FIR just to make out a criminal case against the petitioner. He further submitted that in fact no such incident had ever taken place as alleged by the informant and on the date of incident he was not present at the place of occurrence and the petitioner was not known to the Informant as he has never met him. He further submitted that the petitioner has not cheated the informant nor has committed any forgery and the allegations levelled against the petitioner is false, fabricated and without any basis. He further submitted that there is no evidence or proof of any dishonest inducement either to the informant or to any witness which is the essential ingredients for the commission of the alleged offence. He further submitted that petitioner is a Chairman of a company and is a very respectable member of the society having no previous criminal history.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and had indulged in repeated offences of forgery, cheating etc. which has been deliberately concealed in the writ petition by him. He further referred to the paragraph 3 of the short counter
affidavit to indicate that several cases under Section 420 IPC along with other sections of Indian Penal Code were already registered against the petitioner wherein almost similar allegations of usurping money by fraud and forgery has been made. He further submitted that the plea of alibi has been made only on the basis of Google Maps which is based on email communications, which is nothing but an evasive tactic and the same cannot be looked into at this stage of proceedings. He further submitted that the petitioner has not come with the case that he has only a single e-mail account and therefore no weightage in this regard can be given to him. He further submitted that the petitioner came and met the Informant and provided him the original copy of the sale deed dated 10.5.2010 of the land in question in his favour. He further submitted that an agreement was also executed between the parties on 3.10.2016 at Meerut regarding the receipt of Rs. 25 lacks in cash which has been duly signed by the petitioner and the same was also notarized. In support thereof, he referred to the Annexure No. SCA 4 of the short counter affidavit indicating that the original sale deed was given by the petitioner to the Informant at Meerut along with copy of the notarized receipt executed at Meerut on 3.10.2016. He further submitted that if the petitioner did not know the Informant then how could he come in the possession of the original sale deed executed earlier in favour of the petitioner clubbed with the fact that the receipt of Rs. 25 lacks under his own signatures was also executed and notarized on 3.10.2016 at Meeurt and this fact entirely demolishes the case set up by the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner, by playing fraud and forgery, had
duped him in parting with the amount of Rs. 25 lacks under the garb of selling the land which was already sold by him way back on 4.4.2011.
Heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.
From the perusal of the F.I.R. and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in the FIR. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR is refused.
The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2018
vinay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is entitled to quash the FIR in a cheating and forgery case at the present stage.
Whether a prima facie case has been made out from the allegations in the FIR.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Jain
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Shashi Kant Gupta
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
