SHANKERLAL GEHLOT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties as well as the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner ­ Modaram has deposited the money due against the auction along with the interest and penalty, and in the FIR, it has not been narrated as to which money was due against him. He submits that without ascertaining the fact as to whether any money remained due despite the certificate dated 09.08.2001, the FIR has been registered. He further submits that the State Government had already directed for regularization of the plot in question on 27.12.1995 and since the dues have already been deposited on 24.01.1992, no dues remain to be paid to the Municipality and, as such, neither any wrongful loss has been caused to the Municipality nor any wrongful gain has been caused to Modaram. Thereby, it has been stated that the essential ingredients for the commission of the offence under Section 13 of the P.C. Act are not made out.