RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No. 691 dated 21.10.2016 registered under Sections 420, 447 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.') at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad along with final report dated 19.03.2017 and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Briefly stated, factual matrix of the case is that Parwati Devi submitted written complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad alleging that she purchased a plot measuring 100 square yards from Mukesh Panchal vide registered sale deed No.17840 dated 20.03.2015 registered with the Sub Registrar, Faridabad regarding which mutation No.2523 dated 28.09.2015 was sanctioned in her favour. The above said plot was owned by Raj Kumar Sharma and Mukesh Panchal, as his General Power of Attorney, got the sale deed executed and registered in respect of plot measuring 50 square yards in her favour and executed agreement to sell agreeing to sell remaining plot measuring 50 square yards in favour of Saroj. After purchase of the plot she got the boundary wall of the said plot constructed and also put some building material on the said plot. The accused persons came to her plot and gave beating to the construction workers and forced them to run from there. When she objected, the accused threatened to kill her and her family members and forced her to go away from the plot. Subsequently, she came to know that accused persons in conspiracy with each other got sale deed No.3286 dated 22.05.2015 registered from the Office of Sub Registrar, Faridabad by producing fake witnesses. She purchased the plot by using the compensation amount received by her due to death of her son in road accident and her hard earned money. The accused are doing the business of property dealing and grab money of innocent persons and they may be stopped from interfering in her plot. After verification of facts by inquiry above said FIR was registered. The police investigated the case and on completion of investigation on finding sufficient evidence against the petitioner, filed report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. against him.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the present petition pleading that the petitioner borrowed Rs.8 lacs from Mukesh Panchal and kept his plot measuring 100 square yards as security with him by executing General Power of Attorney (for short 'the GPA') dated 11.03.2015 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Noida. The original GPA dated 11.03.2015 was kept by the petitioner and was agreed to be cancelled after repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 8 lacs. Mukesh Panchal with mala fide intention procured certified copy of the GPA dated 11.03.2015 and on the basis thereof executed sale deed dated 20.03.2015 for plot measuring 50 square yards in favour of complainant Parwati Devi and agreement to sell regarding remaining plot measuring 50 square yards in favour of Saroj after receiving full and final payment. Thereafter, Mukesh Panchal executed and got registered sale deed dated 22.05.2015 in favour of Pankaj Sharma and Mukesh Sharma but subsequently Pankaj Sharma and Yogesh Sharma executed GPA dated 28.05.2015 regarding the same in favour of Mukesh Panchal. The petitioner returned the loan amount of Rs.8 lacs to Mukesh Panchal and thereafter cancelled the GPA on 25.05.2015. After a few days, the petitioner came to know that Mukesh Panchal had executed the above said two sale deeds on the basis of registered GPA dated 11.03.2015 without his knowledge and against his wish in favour of his agents to grab the land of the petitioner. The petitioner made complaint dated 06.10.2015 to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Faridabad on which enquiry was got conducted. The accused persons being very influential persons having high political links succeeded in getting the enquiry filed without any action against them. The petitioner filed representation dated 15.01.2016 before the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad but no action was taken by the Police Commissioner, Faridabad. The petitioner approached this Court by filing CRM-M-9090-2016 on which directions were issued by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2016 to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad to decide the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the complainant challenging sale deed in her favour on which status quo order dated 27.05.2016 has been passed in favour of the petitioner. In his written statement filed in that case Mukesh Panchal has admitted that possession of the land was never handed over to him by the petitioner. The petitioner did not make any inducement to the complainant and did not receive any money from her. The petitioner was in possession of the plot and question of forcible dispossession of the complainant from the same did not arise. The petitioner has accordingly sought quashing of the above-said FIR alongwith final report and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.