NANCHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for quashing the FIR No. 78/2013 lodged at Police Station Harmada, Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.25, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, wherein he claimed that his father late Shri Om Prakash had entered into an agreement to sale on 29.12.2011 with regard to a land which belonged to petitioner no. 1 Nanchu. The petitioner no. 3 Birdaram Serawat had introduced his father to petitioner no.2 Babulal Kumhar and told him that Babulal Kumhar is interested in selling his land lying in Khasra No. 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88 and 89. According to the agreement, his father was required to pay 21,61,000/- per bigha. In pursuance of the said agreement, his father paid Rs. 5 lakhs in cash to petitioner no. 1 Nanchu and gave him two cheques of Rs. 4 lakhs each. Thus, his father gave a total of Rs. 9 lakhs to the accused persons. Despite the fact that the said amount was paid and despite the requirement of the agreement that the petitioner would get the land partitioned within six days, the petitioners failed to do so. Moreover, they failed to get sale-deed registered in favour of his father. Instead they kept on asking for more money from his father. On 12.6.2012, his father again paid Rs. 1 lakh in cash to the petitioners. Despite the transactions of money, they refused to get the sale-deed registered and sold the land to other parties. The said complaint was sent for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint, the police station Harmada, registered the FIR No. 78/2013 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of two years. According to the complainant, the agreement to sale was entered into on 29.12.2011 and the FIR is not lodged till 5.2.2013. Secondly, the two cheques allegedly given by the complainant's father had bounced on the ground of insufficient funds. Since the complainant's father had given two cheques knowing fully that they will not be honoured by the Bank, therefore, it is complainant's father who had cheated the petitioners. Thirdly, the entire FIR relates to a case of civil nature. Therefore, an attempt has been made to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. Lastly, such an FIR tentamounts to abuse of process of law.