RAMPAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner Ram Pal Sharma, has filed this criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 28/2009 registered at Police Station CID (SOG) Jaipur against him.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioner had ancestral land situated in village Labana 'I'ehsil Amer District Jaipur in Khasra Nos. 143, 147 to 164 and 167 total 60 Bighas and 18 Bishwas having half share. On 3.4.2005 the accused-petitioner entered into an agreement with one Ajeet Sharma for selling his aforesaid share for a consideration of Rs. 21,00,000.00 and Rs. 15,00,000.00 were given in cash as advance. 'Me remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000.00 was to be paid to the petitioner by 30.6.2005 and the petitioner was to execute the sale deed. The accused-petitioner did not execute the sale deed as the respondents 3 and 4 Prakash Chand Jain and Rafique Khan contacted him and paid Rs. 1,00,000.00 to sell the said land on 30.6.2005. The petitioner given out that he informed about the earlier agreement with Ajeet Sharma but the respondents 3 and 4 stated that they are influential enough to tackle the person with whom the petitioner had entered into agreement on 3.4.2005. It is alleged by the petitioner on account of this he did not honour the earlier agreement and received a notice sent by Ajeet Sharma on 19.7.2005. Ajeet Sharma filed a civil suit for specific performance in the Court of District Jude, Jaipur District on 20.9.2005. On 23.9.2005 the Additional District Judge No. 2 Jaipur District Jaipur passed an ad-interim order directing the petitioner to maintain status quo in regard to the land in question. On 1.5.2006 the respondents 3 and 4 and witnesses of the agreement dated 8.7.2005 filed affidavit to the effect that the agreement dated 34.2005 is forged. The trial Court vide order dated 4.5.2006 dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by Ajeet Sharma. The petitioner approached the appellate Court wherein interim order to maintain status quo was passed and vide order dated 15.5.2007 the appeal filed by him was allowed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo and the trial Court was directed to decide the civil suit expeditiously. The petitioner approached the respondents 3 and 4 on a number of occasions to get the suit decided but they refused to cooperate with the petitioner and without consent of the petitioner they moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading them as parties to the civil suit on 22.11.2008. After obtaining receipt oft 1,00,000 from the petitioner on 30.6.2005, the respondents 3 and 4 prepared an agreement dated 8.7.2005 wherein it was shown that the petitioner has sold the land for a consideration of Rs. 1,42,51,000.00 and Rs. 20,00,000.00 were taken' by cheque besides Rs. 1,00,000.00 in cash taken earlier as advance by the petitioner. The remaining amount was to be paid to the petitioner at the time of execution of the sale deed by April 2006. The respondents 3 and 4 did not take any steps to get the sale deed executed in his favour and did not pay the remaining amount. The petitioner kept requesting the respondents 3 and 4 to make efforts but the petitioner sat tight over the matter. The petitioner stated in the petition that he was left with no option but to approach the original agreement holder Ajeet Sharma as he was in dire need of money and he agreed to pay the same price as was agreed by the respondents 3 and 4. The civil suit pending before the Additional Judge No. 2 Jaipur District was dismissed in default on 17.3.2009 and on 18.3.2009 the sale deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of Shyarnlata as per the instructions of Ajeet Sharma. On 21.3.2009 the petitioner approached the respondents 3 and 4 and tendered them cheques of Rs. 10,50,000.00 each as that was the advance received by the petitioner but they refused to accept the same and threatened that the petitioner will have to face dire consequences. On 18.6.2009 the respondents 3 and 4 filed civil suit against the petitioner and his brother, original agreement holder and the subsequent purchaser for permanent injunction, declaration, cancellation of sale deed and specific performance. The trial Court vide order dated 25.6.2009 passed an order directing defendants 2 and 4 to majntain status quo till next date. The respondents 3 and 4 in order to harass the petitioner and his family members filed a criminal complaint on 2.4.2009 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City. The CJM sent the aforesaid complaint on 7.7.2009 to the SOG (CI1)) Jaipur for investigation under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. The petitioner stated in the petition that the SOG (CID) Jaipur did not had the jurisdiction still the F.I.R. No. 28/2009 was registered on 21.7.2009. The learned counsel stated that the dispute is fully of civil nature still in order to harass, the respondents 3 and 4 have lodged the F.I.R. with the ill motive. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this misc. petition for quashing the F.I.R.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the police has registered the F.I.R. with the ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. The respondents 3 and 4 after approaching the civil Court and getting the interim order approached the criminal Court only to harass the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner had offered the cheques to the respondents 3 and 4 of the amount advanced by them but they refused to accept the same and the respondents 3 and 4 themselves did not honour the agreement dated 8.7.2005. The respondents jut as a preempt have lodged the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner as they felt that the petitioner might lodge an F.I.R. against them as it was due to their false assurance the petitioner signed the 11 agreement on 8.7.2005 for the same piece of land.