RADHA DIXIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation against petitioner is that she earlier sold the disputed plot to one Jambu Kumar Jain on 22/2/2002 for sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- and then, sold the same plot again to the complainant on 30/3/2007 for sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- and for that purpose lodged the false FIR that original papers of the disputed plot were misplaced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that actually the agreement to sale was executed in favour of the complainant by the petitioner for sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-, which fact is proved and corroborated from the entry Sr.No.3602 dated 30/3/2007 of the Notary Public, wherein sale consideration amount has been mentioned as Rs.60,000/-. In fact, another agreement to sale was prepared as per the practice prevalent in Kota on a blank signed non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- for on-ward sale and transfer only with a view to pressurizing the petitioner and to blackmail her filled the amount of Rs.4,10,000/- in blank portion. Petitioner was not aware of the sale deed executed in the year 2002 because her husband, who was also into the business of property dealing, had purchased the plot in her name and got accordingly got sale papers prepared in favour of Shri Jambu Kumar Jain but he was unfortunately murdered in the year 2004. Complainant is also in the business of property dealing. Taking advantage of this fact, he has tried to pressurize the petitioner to give Rs.4,10,000/-, whereas actually the plot was sold for sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the blank agreement to sale is compared with the agreement to sale, which is filled in, it becomes evident that figures of Rs.4,10,000/- and the words indicating that amount have been subsequently filled in by use of another typewriter. Alignment or the words do not tally with previously typed out words in the blank agreement to sale and the signature of petitioner also tallies with the cutting therein. Petitioner is in jail since 10/12/2011. This is her first offence. She is a woman and hence entitled to the special consideration by virtue of first proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. She is aged 52 years. Challan has been filed. There is no other previously registered criminal case against her. There are no chances of her fleeing from justice. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

(2.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.