DEEPAK BANSAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition seeking quashing of complaint which was registered as FIR No.82/2020, at Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur, for the offence under Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 has purchased l/28th share of the property from Sabra vide registered sale deed dtd. 25/9/2019. It is contended that petitioner No.1 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. The property in question in revenue record was shown in the name of Sabra and there is no allegation in the FIR that the sale deed registered by Sabra is forged. It is contended that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence. It is contended that the complainant himself purchased l/36th share of the property vide registered sale deed dtd. 25/1/1990 from Manjur Ali and similarly petitioner No.1 has purchased l/28th share from Sabra.

(3.) It is also contended that a partition suit and suit for cancellation of sale deed have been filed by Abdul Gani with regard to the property sold by Sabra to the petitioner No.1. It is contended that a civil dispute has been given a look of criminal offence. No offence under Ss. 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC are made out from bare perusal of the FIR. It is also contended that the son and wife of petitioner No.1 have also been implicated as an accused in the FIR when admittedly the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his wife and son have nothing to do with the purchase of property.