Dismissed

Ramesh and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC11 Apr 2018CRLMP/691/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIR under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B regarding alleged cheating and forgery in plot sales. The High Court found insufficient ground for quashing as the FIR was not premature and sufficient evidence of cheating existed.

What did the court decide?

FIR was not quashed for petitioners Ramesh, Bhim Singh, and Daya Nand; no order required for Surendra and Lala.

Ramesh and Ors. Vs State and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 691 / 2018

¶3

Ramesh S/o Balwan Punia, Resident of Ward No. 30, Bhadra Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶4

Surendra S/o Pratap Singh, Resident of Village Sahuwala At Present Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶5

Lala @ Vinod S/o Tej Singh, Resident of Ward No. 23, Bhadra Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶6

Bhim Singh S/o Kashi Ram, Resident of Malkhera, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶7

----Petitioners Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan

¶9

Niranjan Lal S/o Rishi Kumar, Resident of Ward No. 20, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4133 / 2017

¶12

Daya Nand S/o Rati Ram, Resident of Dabdi, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶13

----Petitioner Versus

¶14

The State of Rajasthan

¶15

Niranjan Lal S/o Rishi Kumar, Resident of Ward No. 20, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶16

----Respondents _____________________________________________________

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary

¶18

For Respondent No.1. Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, P.P. For Respondent No.2: Mr. M.S. Soni

¶19

Investigating officer present in person : Mr. Bhup Singh, SI of Police Station, Gogamedi

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CRLMP-691/2018]

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Order

¶23

11/04/2018

¶24

These criminal misc. petitions are filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.232/2017 of Police Station Bhadra for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,

¶25

471 and 120-B of IPC.

¶26

The impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of the respondent No.2 who has alleged that an agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner-Ramesh Kumar for selling nine plots situated in town, Bhadra. The said agreement was executed on 06.01.2017 and as per the agreement between the parties, nine plots were sold at the rate of Rs.3 lac per plot and Ramesh Kumar has agreed that he would pay the total amount of Rs.27 lac on 15.01.2017 and on that date, the registered sale deed would be executed in favour of Ramesh Kumar.

¶27

It is alleged that on 15.01.2017, the accused Ramesh Kumar had shown his inability to pay the entire costs of the plots and, therefore, the registered document could not be executed. It is further alleged that on further date, the parties sat together along with the other persons and in that meeting it was decided that since Ramesh Kumar is not in a position to arrange the amount as agreed in the agreement dated 06.01.2017, the agreement should be cancelled. It is alleged that after cancellation of the said agreement, Ramesh Kumar sold the above nine plots to petitioner No.4-Bhim Singh in Feburary, 2017 and the petitioner-Bhim Singh further sold the said plots to petitioner-Daya Nand in April, 2017

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

[CRLMP-691/2018]

¶30

without any authority. The complainant has further alleged that accused persons committed offences of cheating and also prepared forged documents while hatching a criminal conspiracy.

¶31

The police have conducted the investigation and found that as a matter of fact, the father of the complainant executed an agreement in favour of Ramesh Kumar on 06.01.2017 for selling nine plots situated in town, Bhadra for an amount of Rs. 27 lac, however, when Ramesh Kumar was not in a position to arrange the agreed amount for the purpose of purchasing the plots, the agreement was cancelled and the original agreement was returned to father of the complainant and the cheques given by Ramesh Kumar in lieu of the said agreement has also been received by him. After that on the basis of a photocopy of the original agreement dated 06.01.2017, Ramesh Kumar sold the said plots vide agreement to sell in favour of Bhim Singh and later on, Bhim Singh also sold the said plots to Daya Nand. The police have also collected the evidence of this effect that Bhim Singh and Daya Nand were well aware about the cancellation of the earlier agreement but despite that, they hatched a conspiracy with Ramesh Kumar and executed the subsequent agreements without any authority. The police have also recorded the statements of the witnesses who were present in the meeting where the original agreement dated 06.01.2017 was cancelled and the original copy of the said agreement was handed over to father of the complainant. All the witnesses have confirmed that the original agreement was returned by Ramesh Kumar to father of the complainant after receipt of three cheques which was delivered by

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CRLMP-691/2018]

¶34

him at the time of execution of agreement dated 06.01.2017.

¶35

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the material collected by the police, during the course of investigation, FIR cannot be quashed.

¶36

The Investigating Officer, present in person has stated that the police have found involvement of petitoners-Ramesh Kumar, Bhim Singh and Daya Nand in commission of crime for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. The Investigating Officer has also stated that no case is made out against the petitioners-Surendra and Lala (petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.691/2018.)

¶37

In view of the above discussions, no case is made out for quashing of FIR at the instances of Ramesh Kumar, Bhim Singh and Daya Nand, however, as the police since have not found any case against the petitioners-Surendra and Lala, no further order is required to be passed in relation to them.

¶38

Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

¶39

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

¶40

Taruna

Ramesh and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Goliya Vs State and Anr.

Firm Vinayak Fuel Filling Station Vs Haridas

Augad Ram and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Neeraj Kanwar Vs State and Anr.

Babu Lal Vs State and Anr.

Ashok Purohit Vs State and Ors.