Dismissed

Liyakat Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2022CRLMP/329/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of a judgment framing charges under Sections 420, 406, and 448 IPC for alleged cheating in a property sale dispute. The court held that prima facie ingredients of the offenses are established and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Liyakat Ali Vs State of Rajasthan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 329/2019

Liyakat Ali & Anr.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

23/08/2022

¶12

This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

¶13

“ It is, therefore, prayed that this misc. petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 02.01.2018 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 125/14 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.”

¶14

Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the complainant (respondent no.2 herein) filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court, which was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur; accordingly, an F.I.R. bearing No. 523/2013 was registered against the petitioner and upon investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 448 I.P.C. In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner owns a house situated at Karnal, Sahab ki Haveli and that on 19.02.2013, the petitioner agreed to sell the property to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-. And that, the complainant had on two previous

¶15

[CRLMP-329/2019]

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

occasions, loaned sums of Rs. 6,00,000/-, Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- to the petitioner, on 20.12.2011 owing to the petitioner’s need to deal with family expenses and on 10.07.2012 and 24.09.2012, owing to the petitioner’s need to meet expenses for his daughter’s wedding and other family related expenses, respectively; totaling an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was subsequently on date of entering into agreement adjusted with the sum toward the sale of the land in question. And that, on 18.02.2013 the complainant also paid an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioner towards the sale in question. And that, the complainant was assured by the petitioner that an outstanding payment of Rs, 1,40,000/- towards mortgage payment of the house would be settled by the petitioner with the concerned Bank, Bank of India, and give the complainant a N.O.C., and would receive the remainder Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the sale in question on 31.12.2012.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the averments made in the complaint are without substance, and the has been lodged with a clear motive to falsely implicate the present petitioners in a case of criminal nature, despite the fact that the complete chain of events clearly shows that the dispute in question is purely of a civil nature.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the averments made by the complainant in the complaint are without basis and unfounded in agreement to sell, and that no possession of the land in question was handed over, and is subject matter of a civil suit.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:

¶21

[CRLMP-329/2019]

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

(a) Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.295/2022, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.02.2022);

¶24

(b) Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1635/2022, decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 18.05.2022);

¶25

(c) B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee & Anr., 2008 CRI.L.J. 431;

¶26

(d) Munnu Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1956/2017, decided by this Court on 25.08.2017);

¶27

(e) Bhupinder Singh Kochar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4005/2014, decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 18.06.2015);

¶28

(f) Ramesh Chandra & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.419/2012, decided by this Court on 12.09.2017); and

¶29

(g) Bhoma Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1402/2015, decided by this Court on 27.07.2017).

¶30

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the conduct of the accused-petitioner squarely falls within the scope of criminal law, as he has fraudulently sought received sums of money at different dates, but did not make compliance with his part of the agreement for sale of the land in question, and thus, the learned court below has rightly proceeded in framing charges against the petitioner, and does not merit interference by this Court, particularly, when as per the settled proposition of law, at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is not required to make any roving enquiry or detailed analysis regarding guilt or innocence of the accused.

¶31

[CRLMP-329/2019]

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶34

This Court finds that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290 .

¶35

At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused may be made out. And that the facts that emerge from the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may be framed.

¶36

Looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on the record, this Court does find a case warranting its interference to be made out, at this stage.

¶37

The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners.

¶38

Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.

¶39

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶40

83-/Skant//-

Liyakat Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Liyakat Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruchika Solanki Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranu Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Saddam Vs State of Rajasthan

Madangopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Sita Devi Vs State and Anr.

Pyarchand and Anr. Vs State and Anr.