BADRI DUTT JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the FIR No.0198 of 2024 dtd. 15/4/2024, under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.

(2.) Facts in nutshell are that respondent no.3 lodged the first information report with the allegations that petitioners are associated with a land mafia operating in the Haridwar District. It is alleged in the FIR that in the year 2007-2008, respondent no.3's company was actively engaged in housing development project within the Haridwar District. Respondent no.3entered into discussions with several land brokers, one of whom was the petitioners, who offered a piece of land located in Village Rahematpur at rates acceptable to the shareholders and directors. A formal agreement was established in which the petitioner no.1 acted as an intermediary on behalf of respondent no.3's company and upon registration of the land in his name, petitioner no.1 was to transfer the land to the company at the mutually agreed terms. It is further alleged in the FIR that respondent no.3's company provided necessary funds to pay the landowners and disbursed Rs.5.00 crores to the farmers, out of which Rs.1.00 crore in cash to the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and Rs.50.00 lakhs in cash to petitioner nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of purchasing the land and transferring the ownership to the respondent no.3's company. In the year 2010, respondent no.3 requested that the land be officially registered in the company's name then the petitioner no.1 continuously postponed the registration citing various reasons and as a result, the company requested to refund of Rs.6.5 crores. But, the same was not done. It is also alleged in the FIR that without actual possession of the land and consent of the company, petitioner received a compensation of Rs.89.00 lakhs and managed to abscond. With the aforesaid allegations, the first information report has been lodged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is purely a civil dispute and just to create pressure upon the petitioners, present FIR has been lodged. He further submits that since the land in-question was acquired by the NHAI and after verifying the title deeds and records of the land, the compensation was rightly paid to the petitioners, therefore, there is no iota of substance in the allegations alleged in the FIR. He also submits that the petitioner no.1 used to work in the company of respondent no.3 and since he left the company and was managing his own property, respondent no.3 has lodged the instant FIR purely as revenge, vendetta and vengeance against petitioner no.1 and his family members. It has also been argued that the FIR is lodged in counter blast of the complaint made by the petitioner no.1 on 9/6/2023.