Allowed

Deepak Bansal v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2021CRLMP/2179/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Misc. Petition, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur quashed an FIR registered against petitioners for offences of cheating and forgery. The Court held that the dispute was purely civil regarding a property sale deed, pending civil suits existed, and no forgery was alleged. The Court found no prima facie offence was made out and held that continuing proceedings wo

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Petition was allowed and FIR No.82/2020 at Police Station Makrana and entire proceedings regarding the petitioners were quashed and set aside.

Deepak Bansal Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2179/2021

¶4

Deepak Bansal S/o Sh. Raghunandan, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Balaji Colony, Makrana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶5

Smt. Seema Bansal W/o Sh. Deepak Bansal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Balaji Colony, Makrana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶6

Utkarsh Bansal S/o Sh. Deepak Bansal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Balaji Colony, Makrana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State, through PP

¶10

Fayaz Ahmed S/o Sh. Abdul Jabbar, Partner Firm M/s. Sinetar Marble Industries, Resident Of Peer-Ki-Dargah, Makrana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
	Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
For State	: Mr. Gaurav Singh,PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶14

Order

¶15

04/10/2021

¶16

Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition seeking quashing of complaint which was registered as FIR No.82/2020, at Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur, for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.

¶17

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 has purchased 1/28^th share of the property from Sabra vide registered sale deed dated 25.09.2019. It is contended that petitioner No.1 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. The property in question in revenue record was shown in the name of

¶18

(2 of 6)

¶19

[CRLMP-2179/2021]

¶20

Sabra and there is no allegation in the FIR that the sale deed registered by Sabra is forged. It is contended that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence. It is contended that the complainant himself purchased 1/36th share of the property vide registered sale deed dated 25.01.1990 from Manjur Ali and similarly petitioner No.1 has purchased 1/28th share from Sabra.

¶21

It is also contended that a partition suit and suit for cancellation of sale deed have been filed by Abdul Gani with regard to the property sold by Sabra to the petitioner No.1. It is contended that a civil dispute has been given a look of criminal offence. No offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC are made out from bare perusal of the FIR. It is also contended that the son and wife of petitioner No.1 have also been implicated as an accused in the FIR when admittedly the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his wife and son have nothing to do with the purchase of property.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Ashok Kumar Padhy vs. ICFAI Foundation and Anr. 2018 CRI. L. J.

¶23

3646, wherein the Court observed that the dispute was of civil nature, which was given colour of criminal offence and thus, order taking cognizance was quashed and set aside.

¶24

Reliance is also placed on Praramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 67 , wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that if a civil remedy is available and in fact adopted, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings. Apex Court further observed that if the High Court comes to the conclusion that dispute which essentially is of

¶25

(3 of 6)

¶26

[CRLMP-2179/2021]

¶27

a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence, High Court should quash the proceedings.

¶28

Reliance is also placed on Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 746 , wherein the Court observed that growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. The Apex Court directed the Courts to ensure that the proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil dispute. 7. Reliance is also placed on Ganesh Dan vs. State of Rajashtan & Anr. 2012(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj) 1984, wherein there was a property dispute and none of the signatures were found to be forged. Thus, the criminal proceedings for offence under Sections 468 & 471 were not found to be made out and the FIR was quashed.

¶29

Reliance is also placed on Sardar Ali Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021(1) CJ(Crl.)(SC) 488 , wherein there was no allegation of impersonation and forgery of the signatures. The Court observed that continuation of the proceedings would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court and the proceedings were quashed.

¶30

Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the misc. petition. It is argued that Courts cannot enter into the merits of the case and stall the investigation. It is contended that in the revenue records, the name of Sabra was added in the year 2019 and immediately, thereafter, the sale deed was registered

¶31

(4 of 6)

¶32

[CRLMP-2179/2021]

¶33

which goes to show that there was criminal intent. It is also contended that petitioners have done under cutting in the property and have done mining beneath the property of the complainant.

¶34

It is also contended that some family settlements took place way back in the year 1981, in which Abdul Hakim was a signatory. Petitioner No.1 has purchased the property from Sabra. The property was un-partitioned and therefore, he had no right to encroach upon the land which was purchased by the complainant way back in the year 1990. It is also contended that civil suit for cancellation of sale deed and for partition of property by metes and bounds has been filed by Abdul Gani and others which is pending before the Court and in which complainant is also a party. 11. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on “Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2018 (3) SCC Page 106.”, wherein it was held that the High Court cannot act like an Investigating Agency and High Court can exercise its jurisdiction keeping in view the contents of the FIR. The Apex Court further observed that if the Court finds that the FIR disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, High Court should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.

¶35

I have considered the contentions and have carefully perused the FIR.

¶36

Admittedly, complainant has purchased 894 square yards of the land on 25.01.1990 from Manjur Ali. The allegations in the FIR are pointing to the fact of petitioner No.1 having done under

¶37

(5 of 6)

¶38

[CRLMP-2179/2021]

¶39

cutting in the land belonging to the complainant. As far as role of petitioner Nos.2 & 3 is concerned, they happen to be wife and son of petitioner No.1. They are neither the registered owner of the property, nor there is any allegation against them in the FIR. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he has purchased the property by registered sale deed and the sale deed in question is challenged in a partition suit filed by Abdul Gani. There is no allegation that petitioner No.1 has forged the sale deed. The dispute purely is of civil nature for which, a civil suit is pending between the parties.

¶40

It is true that the Courts cannot act like an Investigating Agency and only the contents of the FIR are to be seen at the stage when a petition for quashing of FIR is filed. In the facts of the present case, petitioner No.1 is a bonafide purchaser and the dispute is purely of a civil nature and for which, civil suit for partition and cancellation of sale deed are pending before the Court below. No offence of cheating or forging of any document by petitioner No.1 is made out from bare perusal of the FIR. There is no allegation against Petitioners No.2 and 3 who are wife and son of Petitioner No.1 The Apex Court in the cases referred hereinabove has clearly held that if the FIR does not disclose commission of an offence and if the dispute pending between the parties is of a civil nature, High Court can quash the proceedings. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Supra), Apex Court has held that if civil remedy is available and is availed, High Court should not hesitate to quash the proceedings.

¶41

(6 of 6)

¶42

[CRLMP-2179/2021]

¶43

Since, petitioner No.1 is bonafide purchaser and there is no allegation against petitioners No.2 and 3 and there is no allegation with regard to cheating or forging in the FIR in question and since the dispute is of a civil nature and admittedly civil suits pertaining to partition and cancellation of sale deed are pending before the Court, the continuation of proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of Court. Thus, this Court deems it proper to quash the proceedings qua the petitioners.

¶44

Misc. Petition is accordingly, allowed. FIR No.82/2020, at Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur and the entire proceedings in furtherance thereto qua the petitioners are quashed and set aside.

¶45

Stay application stands disposed.

¶46

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶47

chandan/18

Deepak Bansal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Bansal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanshu Tetarwal S/O Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Aadil Son of Majid, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Balani S/O Ghanshyamdas @ Pappu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Bansal Vs State

Fateh Singh @ Vinay @ Vittu Son of Shri Jagveer, Vs State of Rajasthan