RATNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.132/2013 registered at the Police Station Pipar City for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the facts of the case are that one Sukhdeo submitted a written report to the S.H.O. Pipar City on 19.6.2013. He alleged in the report that his brother Sugna Ram committed suicide by throwing himself in front of the train at the village Bhundana. He alleged that his brother had come to the village for partition of their ancestral property. However, his uncle's sons Tulsi Ram, Omprakash and sister - in -law Smt.Ashi @ Asu Devi sold their share of the land to Ratna Ram secretly and without their consent. He further alleged that the land continued to be in possession of all the seven brothers i.e. the sons of Banshi Lal including the complainant. Sugna Ram was going to the Pipar Courts for the last 7 ­ 8 days for the purpose of putting some sense into their uncle's sons and for ascertaining the possession of the ancestral property, however his efforts failed and Ratna Ram and the uncle's sons rejected the proposal of Sugna Ram outrightly.

(3.) SHRI Vishal Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner Ratna Ram submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property in question. He submitted that merely because the petitioner purchased the property against the desire and wishes of the deceased, it cannot be said that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He urged that the khatedars of the property in question namely Tulsi Ram, Omprakash, Shrawan, Mahaveer and Ashi voluntarily sold their share in the property to the petitioner for valid consideration by way of a registered sale deed. Learned counsel submitted that if at all the deceased was aggrieved of the sale then, the only remedy available to him was to challenge the sale deed as per law. Learned counsel urged that the sale was executed on 6.6.2013 and the deceased committed suicide on 18.6.2013. Thus it is evident that the transaction of sale and purchase of the land has no proximity with the cause of suicide. Learned counsel further submitted that during the course of the investigation, the complainant and the petitioner have compromised the matter and the complainant is not desirous of continuing the petitioner's prosecution in the F.I.R. impugned. He thus urged that the F.I.R. impugned deserves to be quashed.