SANJEEV NAYYAR Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred against order dated 24.02.2014 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, by virtue of which he has allowed I/O to collect the documents for completion of further investigation, in an application filed by the Investigation Officer in police challan 89/2013 filed subsequent to registration of FIR No.21/2012 dated 21.01.2012 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 RPC.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this criminal revision briefly stated are that the petitioner is a victim of the conspiracy hatched by complainant in connivance with the police authorities of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and got registered a false and frivolous FIR No.21/2012 against petitioner by exerting sheer influence of the father of complainant, who is ex-M.L.A, and just to counter two numbers of FIRs registered against the complainant and using the registration of FIR impugned herein against the petitioner as pressurized tactics to shield his own acts of omission and commission whereby the complainant along with others has indulged in the act of cheating, forgery in conspiracy with each other and regarding each act of complainant and his associate two number of FIRs bearing No.456 dated 07.09.2013 of Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh under section 420 , 120 IPC and FIR No.327 dated 12.06.2013 of Police Station Sector-34, Chandigarh under Section 420/120 RPC registered against them in which the police authorities are in the midst of filing challan against them. It is further stated that the complainant who had become acquainted with the petitioner along with two of his associates one namely Nakul Matto, S/o Sameer Matto R/o 126-A/D Gandhi Nagar Jammu who is real cousin of complainant and one Rajpal S/o Naseeb Chand, R/o Mahashian, R.S. Pura, Jammu in connivance with each other represented themselves as co-owner of house No.119-Sector 38-A Chandigarh induced the petitioner no.1 to purchase the said house at a sale price of 1.05 crores regarding which a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs was obtained by complainant and said Rajpal through cheque No.000701 dated 14.06.2011 and another cheque No.000515 amounting to Rs.1.00 lac. In this view of matter a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs by way of above referred cheques, was received by them as token money and Rs. 25.00 lacs by way of cash. The complainant and said Rajpal have issued a receipt of the token money received by them of a sum Rs.5.00 lacs taken as cash and a formal agreement to sell was executed on 14.11.2011 in which a further sum of Rs.25.00 lacs was also acknowledged by complainant and the said Rajpal whereas said Nakul Matto stood as witness of the same. The said stamp papers were purchased at Chandigarh and the agreement to sell was also executed at Chandigarh. It is submitted that as per agreement the date for execution of the sale deed viz-a-viz house No.119 was fixed as 23rd of December 2011. The fact that the amount paid by the petitioner No.1 to the complainant and said Rajpal by way of cheques was duly encashed as clearly evident from the statement of bank account of the petitioner No.1. It is further stated that since the petitioner no.1 was interested to purchase the property at Chandigarh and was already in contact with the complainant and his above named cousin and had already initiated for sale of another house with the complainant who apprised petitioner that he along with the said Nakul Matto and one Rakesh Kumar S/o Ghasutu Ram claiming themselves to be co- owners of the flat No. 2846 Sector 49-D Chandigarh in the month of September, 2011 and induced the petitioner to purchase the said flat for which the total sale price of the flat was fixed at a sum of Rs.68.00 lacs. It is further submitted that regarding the sale of said flat a sum of Rs.7.00 lacs was paid to them by the petitioner in the account of Rakesh Kumar claiming to be co-owner of the said Flat vide cheque No. 000704 dated 14.11.2011 which was duly encashed and a sum of Rs.17 lacs was paid to the complainant and his other associates by way of cash. In this regard another agreement was also executed on 14.11.2011. That whereas date for the execution of the sale deed in both deals was fixed for 23rd of December, 2011, the petitioner was approached by complainant that they are no more interested in completing the sale transaction and that they are ready to return the advance payment received from the petitioner and in this regard the complainant issued cheque bearing No. 609079 dated 20.12.2011 for an amount of Rs. 15.00 lacs drawn from Punjab National Bank out of the sale transaction amount received by complainant and said Rajpal amounting to Rs.30.00 lacs, the complainant undertook that rest of Rs.15.00 lacs was to be obtained by petitioner from said Rajpal. The complainant further issued a cheque No.0007973 amounting to Rs.24.00 lacs dated 20.12.2011 drawn on 1C1C1 Bank Gandhi Nagar in favour of the petitioner No. 1 as regard the amount received by them towards sale transaction of the above referred house and the flat. The petitioner presented the above referred cheque for encashment in his bankers but both cheques issued by complainant were dishonoured forcing the petitioner No.1 to file complaint under section 138 of the Negotiation Instruments Act in the concerned court of law at Chandigarh. It is further stated that the petitioner having been cheated and suffered wrongful loss at the hands of the complainant and his associates, filed two complaints against said complainant and his associates with Chandigarh Police. On the basis of the complaints lodged by the petitioner two number of FIRs came to be registered against the complainant and his above named associates with the Chandigarh police. On registration of two number of FIRs against the complainant and his above referred associates that a conspiracy was hatched at his behest whereby petitioner was sought to be involved in a criminal case on the false allegations of cheating and forgery on the basis of forged and fabricated photo copy of the document namely Agreement to sell that subsequent to registration of FIR against him bearing No.21/2012 dated 21.01.2012 whereby the date of occurrence was shown as 12.01.2012 was got registered against the petitioner regarding which challan has been presented against the petitioner. The complainant Pawan Matoo and his associate and real cousin Nakul Matoo also filed an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, which came to be dismissed on 18.09.2013. Facing their imminent arrest in the said FIRs at the hands of Chandigarh Police, the complainant yet again in connivance with the police authorities of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu succeeded in filing an application with the trial court through Sub Inspector Khalid Qayoom dated 18.02.2014 i.e., seven months after filing of the challan while during this period there was no effort or prior to that made in this regard by the police authorities concerned for production of documents but without disclosing the nature of the documents which is simply aimed at stalling the investigation and filing of challan against the complainant and his associates facing investigation but avoiding their arrest that resort to application has been made and the court below without putting the petitioner on notice and against the provisions of law and legal position involved on the point has directed vide order dated 24.02.2014 impugned in this petition to the police authorities of economic offences to handover the documents being the agreement to sell which order has the effect of stalling the investigation in the said FIR against the complainant and his associates and filing of challan against them without appreciating that the FIRs against the complainant was registered on the complaint of the petitioner on 28.11.2011 i.e., well before the registration FIR No.21/2012 against the petitioner, the order also impugned in this petition is obviously not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case and not sustainable.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned order has challenged the same in the instant criminal revision on the following grounds: