JETHANAND ADVANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the FIR No. 12/2022 dtd. 27/1/2022 registered with Clock Tower Police Station in the town of Ajmer at the behest of respondent No.2 for the offences under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 470 and 471 IPC.

(2.) The challenge is on the ground that FIR is clear abuse of the process of law initiated with malafides/ malice to wreak vengeance and to cause harm to the claim of the petitioner as well as on the ground that it suffers from absurd and inherently improbable allegations.

(3.) According to the FIR, the accused petitioner was known to the complainant respondent No.2 since last 12-13 years as accused was having a business known as "JNT Brothers" as well as accused was engaged in money lending. The respondent No.2 handed over a Vasiyatnama (Will), Mukhtarnama (power of attorney) and an agreement to sell in respect of his shop No.3 at Kishan Bhawan to his friend Ranjeet Moolchandani on 13/4/2016. The documents were handed over due to friendship between the two. Later on, with the consent of respondent No.2, Ranjeet Moolchandani handed over those documents to the petitioner along with a post-dated cheque of Rs.7,00,000.00 as security and took loan of Rs.7,00,000.00 from the petitioner @ 2% interest. In the month of September, 2016, Ranjeet returned the loan amount to the petitioner and asked for the cheque and the documents but the petitioner did not provide those documents and cheque, rather placed the cheque for clearance before the Bank and the cheque was declared dishonoured. Then the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "NI Act") against Ranjeet. Since the petitioner had dishonest intention he did not return the documents referred above and just to grab the shop of respondent No.2, made certain interpolations in the said documents to put wrongful claim on the shop of respondent No.2 whereas respondent No.2 had never sold the said shop to the petitioner. The photographs and signatures of respondent No.2 are pasted and forged on the said document by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 expressed apprehension that the said documents might be maliciously used by the petitioner.