ARUN KUMAR KESHAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of CrPC seeking relief of quashment of F.I.R. No. 332/2022 registered at police station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. for offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that petitioner entered into an agreement to sale of land bearing khasra no. 1464/11 measuring 18 Dismil situated at Ward No. 13, Ramanujganj, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj with Respondent No. 2/ complainant for total consideration of Rs.53.00 Lakh. At the time of execution of agreement to sale, petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh and Rs.5.00 Lakh through bank cheque on 31/10/2019. For some reason the sale deed could not be executed as one third-person by name Dhruv Thakur took possession of the land claiming it to be his land. The money paid was not returned. Report was lodged, based upon which F.I.R. was also registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that from bare reading of the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is apparent that the complaint made is purely of civil nature and therefore the civil dispute cannot be converted into the criminal case for pressurizing a person for execution of sale deed or refund of advance amount. He further contended that the contents of F.I.R. mentions of payment of Rs.2.00 Lakh cash and Rs.5.00 Lakh through bank cheque, however the cheque was not encashed and amount of Rs.5.00 Lakh remain in the account of Respondent No. 2/ complainant. Respondent No. 2 is pressurizing to pay the amount of Rs.5.00 Lakh which the petitioner has not encashed. He also contended that sofar as the possession of one Dhruv Thakur is concerned, petitioner has already taken recourse of law and filed an application under Sec. 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and against the dismissal of said application under Sec. 250, appeal is filed which is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). There is no contention in the report or F.I.R. of petitioner cheated respondent No. 2 in any manner and therefore the F.I.R. be quashed. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Archana Rana vs. State of U.P., (2021) 3 SCC 751; R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739; G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636; Kapil Agrawal vs. Sanjay Sharma, (2021) 5 SCC 524; Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab in CRA No. 581/2023 decided on 1/3/2023; Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P., AIR OnLine 2022 SC 923; M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd., AIR 2006 SC 2780.