RAM AVTAR TYAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 792/2006 under Section 420/406/467/468/471 IPC registered at PS S.P.Badli. The FIR was registered on the basis of complaint of one Dr. Radhey Lal Singhal NRI, who in the complaint alleged that he was living in Besent, USA and during his trip to India in May, 1997 he was sold two plots of land by the petitioner situated in Keshav Nagar, Village Qadipur Delhi and the documents concerning the plots were executed after receiving full consideration. He was not living in India so he asked his relatives to take possession of the plots sold. He was informed that that seller was not traceable and plots sold to him did not exist. He stated that a fraud was played upon him.

(2.) It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that at the time when sale was done the complainant was satisfied about the identity of the plot and the documents were duly executed in respect of the two plots. The two plots were not sold together but sold one after another with a gap of time. Had the complainant not been satisfied about the identity of the plot after first sale, he would not have purchased the second plot. The possession was handed over to the complainant at the time of selling the plots and the petitioner was not supposed to act as a watch man of the complainant and keep the plots free from any encroachment. The FIR was a misuse of judicial process.

(3.) A Status Report was called from the State in respect of the FIR registered and it transpired that the petitioner was not the owner of the land sold by him. He was a power of attorney holder of the original owner in respect of only 02 bighas of land in Khasra No. 228 Village Qadipur, Delhi. However, though he was the power of attorney holder only of 02 bighas of land, he sold much more than two bighas of land to different persons out of Khasra No. 228 including the land sold to Dr. R.L.Singhal. It is obvious that the petitioner sold the same land time and again to the persons. The names of persons to whom the petitioner sold this land has been mentioned in the Status Report.