Allowed

Dr. Paras Surya S/O Shri Chunni Lal Ji Surya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2019CRLMP/5443/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR for offences under the IPC. The court relied on Apex Court precedent holding that since the validity of the underlying agreement is sub-judice before the Rent Tribunal, the criminal proceedings must be put on hold.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.441/2019 registered at Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur City (South) was quashed.

Dr. Paras Surya S/O Shri Chunni Lal Ji Surya Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5443/2019

¶3

Dr. Paras Surya S/o Shri Chunni Lal Ji Surya, Managing Trustee Of Shri Amar Charitable Trust, Registered Office At S-22, Bhawani Singh Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, through PP.

¶7

Govind Prasad Saini S/o Late Shri Girdhari Lal Saini, Huf Govind Kartikey Saini, R/o A-56, Nemi Nagar, Gandhipath, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Mr. K.N. Bhatt, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Mr. Surathi Agarwal. For Complainant(s) : Mr. Kamlendra Sihag. For State : Mr. G.C. Chopra, PP.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

18/09/2019

¶13

Accused/petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition seeking quashing of the FIR No.441/2019, registered at Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

¶14

Petitioner is a registered trustee of Amar Charitable Trust. They are having a property at Kiranpath Mansarovar, Jaipur. The said property was given on rent to non-petitioner No.2, later on second floor was constructed as per the agreement entered into between the parties.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that an application is pending before the Rent Tribunal claiming the due

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CRLMP-5443/2019]

¶18

rent which is pending since 02.12.2016. Respondent No.2 has filed an FIR on 13.05.2019 alleging that in agreement dated 18.11.2011 at first page, three lines have been added by the petitioner. It is contended that the rent was reduced to Rs.80,000/- per month for the financial year 2011-12 to 20162017 and the reason for reducing the rent was that complainant respondent was to deposit a sum of Rs.1.5 crores with the petitioner. It is contended that a notice was given by the petitioner to the respondent, wherein the condition of deposition of Rs.1.5 crores was mentioned. It is also contended that in the application filed for recovery for rent before the Rent Tribunal, document Annexure-3 was produced and condition of deposit of Rs.105 crores was mentioned. It is only after recording the statement of petitioner that present FIR has been lodged.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Sardool Singh & Anr. vs. Smt. Nasib Kaur 1987 (Supp) SCC 146.”

¶20

Counsel for the complainant/non petitioner has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that three lines on the first page of agreement dated 18.11.2011 was added by the petitioner. Police has obtained a report from the FSL, as per which font of these three lines are different from the font of the entire agreement and police has come to the conclusion that these three lines were later on added. It is also contended that pendency of application seeking arrears of rent could not bar the police from proceeding with the investigation and submitting the charge-sheet, if offence is made out.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

A civil dispute with regard to rent is pending before the Rent

¶23

Tribunal, wherein it was pleaded by the petitioner that an

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CRLMP-5443/2019]

¶26

agreement has been entered into on 18.11.2011, as per which rent would remain Rs.80,000/- per month and that a sum of Rs.1.50 crores would be deposited by the complainant with the petitioner. In reply to this paragraphs, complainant has not specifically denied the averment of depositing Rs.1.50 crores, however, a photocopy of the agreement was produced before the Court. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner, wherein it was specifically pleaded that agreement dated 18.11.2011 as furnished by the complainant is forged. Rejoinder was filed way back in September, 2016. Thus, it was in the notice of complainant that petitioner had produced the agreement dated 18.11.2011 before the Court, wherein at first page, it was mentioned that complainant would pay Rs.1.50 crores as deposit. Complainant did not specifically deny the allegation of there being a clause of deposit of Rs.1.50 crores.

¶27

Apex Court in Sardool Singh & Anr. vs. Smt. Nasib Kaur (Supra) was dealing with a case where validity of Will was subjudice and criminal prosecution on the allegation of the Will being a forged was instituted. Apex Court held that the matter is subjudice in civil court, hence, respondent cannot be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the Will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with Law. Supreme Court while allowing the appeal quashed the criminal proceedings. However, it clarified that if civil court comes to the conclusion that the Will is forged one, proper proceedings can be initiated.

¶28

Three lines in agreement dated 18.11.2011 is in dispute. As per the petitioner, they were incorporated by the complainant

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CRLMP-5443/2019]

¶31

himself. This fact was asserted in their notice as well as in the application filed before the Rent Tribunal. A belated FIR has been lodged by the complainant. Dispute with respect to the clause in agreement as well as the rent which is payable by the complainant is pending disposal before the rent tribunal, hence, in view of Judgment of Apex Court in Sardool Singh & Anr. vs. Smt. Nasib kaur (Supra), misc. petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed.

¶32

Misc. petition is allowed. FIR No.441/2019, registered at Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur City (South) is quashed. However, it is made clear that this will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the rent tribunal comes to the conclusion that agreement was forged by the petitioner.

¶33

Stay application stands disposed.

¶34

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶35

CHANDAN /104

Dr. Paras Surya S/O Shri Chunni Lal Ji Surya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Paras Surya S/O Shri Chunni Lal Ji Surya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rekha Sharma W/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Geeta Devi W/O Shri Kunwarpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandan Singh S/O Shri Kishan Singh B/C Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman Meena S/O Mattu Meena B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Singh S/O Shri Mukesh Kumar B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash Jaiswal@Rajan@Om Jaiswal@Op Jaiswal S/O Ravi Jaiswal @ Ravindra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan