YOGESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed present Cr.M.P. under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR No. 0129/2023 registered under Ss. 420, 120B, 34 of the IPC at Police Station - Pulgaon, District - Durg on 27/3/2023.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Firoz Khan filed complaint alleging that the plot situated at Gram Panchayat Jewra bearing Khasra No. 496/1, 156, 151/1, Patwari Halka No. 9 and 13 have been sold to Dalbir Singh, Mansingh, Shamsher Khan, Rahim Khan by the accused Mahavir Developers. Director Yogesh Pandey and his associates and employees Vinay Launay, Karthik and Patwari Halka No. 9 and 13 by conspiring, deceiving and committing fraud as they have not taken approval from Town and Country Planning Authorities. It has been futher contended that Khasra No. 496/1 belongs to Ramavatar S/o Jagannath and 05 others. Said land has been divided into 39 plots and sold by the accused without proper approval and paying tax. Similarly, the land bearing Khasra No. 156 is registered in the name of Swami Mohan S/o Chandrika and two others, Khasra No. 151/1 is registered in the name of Shriram S/o Govardhan and two others, in which plotings have been done. According to the complainant from 10/1/2021 till 27/3/2023 at 19:00 hrs, the directors of Mahavir Developers and his associates Vinay Launay and Karthik without getting the map approved and taking T.N.C. approval have sold land by paying less consideration to the actual land owners. Since the accused have sold the lands without TNC approval the selling of land is illegal. As such, Yogesh Pandey, the director of Mahavir Developers and his associates have been defrauding the government and misleading the general public by buying and selling land fraudulently and through conspiracy for a long time, therefore, strictest action be taken against them. On the basis of the applicant's application, prima facie a crime under Sec. 420, 120B, 34 IPC has been found, accordingly offence has been registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the face of FIR, no offence much less offence under Ss. 420, 120B and 34 of IPC is made out. In the present case if definition of cheating is kept in juxtapose with the contents of FIR, it will be clear that nowhere it has been stated that the complainant has been deceived or induced to enter into any transaction with any persons. He would further submit that as per contents of FIR, the plots have been sold to various persons by present petitioners belonging to other persons, as stated above therefore, it is unimaginable that any person will enter into any sale or purchase of any immovable property when the said property does not belong to the person with whom transaction is being entered into. Thus there is no privity of contract by and between present petitioners and the persons to whom allegedly plots have been sold. Unless and until the complainant/respondent No.2 encloses documents to the effect that petitioners have sold the property of other persons by impersonating or otherwise, then only any offence of impersonation and cheating may be registered by police. In case at hand, admittedly in the FIR itself it has been mentioned that the lands belong to some other persons and the same have been sold to other persons after plotting and in this background, when on the face of it there is no inducement at least by present petitioners, the police authorities have abused their powers by affecting personal liberty of present petitioners.