RAJESH KESHAVJI KHAKHARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent no.2 - State of Gujarat waives service of notice.

(2.) By way of present application under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("CrPC" for short), the applicant has prayed for quashment of the impugned First Information Report being C.R. No.II-178/2019 registered with Kamalabaug Police Station, Porbandar for the offences under Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and under Ss. 3(1)(R)(S) of the Prevention of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ("Atrocity Act" for short).

(3.) The allegations leveled in the FIR in nutshell are as under, The land bearing Survey No.2885/2 situated in the sim of Village : Chhaya owned by the respondent no.2 herein was sold by him to one Rambhai Mokariya and the applicant herein for sale consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000.00, for which, registered sale deed has been executed by him and at the time of execution of the registered sale deed, the accused have paid an amount of Rs.1,92,00,000.00 and it was decided to pay remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 as when the construction of commercial shops and residential apartment is over. It is alleged that thereafter the respondent no.2 started demanding the remaining amount and at that point of time, an amount of Rs.50,000.00 was given and, thereafter, the respondent no.2 used to demand remaining about but the accused did not give it. It is alleged that on 12/3/2019 at about 8 O'clock, the respondent no.2 had gone to the office of the applicant, where two persons were sitting, however, those two persons were asked to go out from the office and, thereafter, when the respondent no.2 had demanded the remaining amount, the applicant started abusing him. It is alleged that thereafter on 25/3/2019, the respondent no.2 submitted an application to the concerned Superintendent of Police narrating the aforesaid incident and, thereafter, the talks of settlement were going on but not a single penny has been given by the applicant to the respondent no.2. Therefore, the impugned FIR has been lodged.