ANUP TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at Crime No.149/2017, registered at Police Station, Bajariya, District Bhopal for offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the I.P.C. and subsequent, criminal proceeding as charge-sheet has been filed.

(2.) Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of the petition are that the complainant Irfan Khan has a Battery and Inverter shop. With intent to enhance his business, he wanted to establish a Battery and Inverter manufacturing unit. Liladhar Singh is a farmer whose land is situated at Bina. The applicant Anup Tiwari assured him to get him allot a plot from the M.P. Industrial Department and after alluring him obtained of Rs. 35 lacs in different dates. The first payment of Rs. 13 lacs was made at the house and in presence of Liladhar. Other amounts were paid in installments. Neither the petitioner Anup Tiwari got him allot any land nor he returned his Rs. 35 lacs. The applicant also allege that because of the allurement by the accused Anup Tiwari, he handed over Rs. 35 lacs to him. Anup Tiwari assured him to return money but did not return the same and he cheated him. He deliberately given two cheques of Rs. 10 lacs and 15 lacs knowing that the limit of the cheque was less then 10 lacs, therefore, the accused/petitioner cheated the complainant and misused his money.

(3.) On this report, Crime No. 149/2017, has been registered at Police Station, Bajariya, Bhopal for offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, against the petitioner. Petitioner preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the FIR registered against the petitioner is absolutely false and fabricated. Respondent No.2 and the applicant were not known to each other. Chequebook of the petitioner was lost before the date of transaction. It seems that respondent No.2 had stolen the cheques or received them from someone knowing fully well that the same has been stolen. The applicant did not have any agricultural land near Sagar. He never intended to sell any land to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has implicated the petitioner in false fabricated and frivolous prosecution. The documents filed by the applicant indicates that the applicant is innocent, therefore, the FIR dated 205.2017 deserves to be quashed.