ROKMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Smt. Rukma Devi, has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 224/2013, registered at Police Station Chomu, Jaipur Rural for offence under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Dhapa Devi submitted a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 25, Jaipur Metropolitan wherein she claimed that she had sold part of her land to the petitioner, Smt. Rukma Devi. In order to pay the consideration for the land, Smt. Rukma Devi gave the complainant two cheques, namely Cheque No. 743538, amounting to Rs.10 Lac, dated 13.11.2011, and another Cheque No. 743539, for an amount of Rs.11 Lac, dated 28.11.2011. When the complainant submitted the cheque No. 743539 for encasement, the said cheque was not encashed by the Bank on the ground of sufficiency of fund. Consequently, the complainant sent a notice under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("the Act", for short) to the petitioner. However despite service of notice, the petitioner did not pay the cheque amount to the complainant. Instead the petitioner sold the not pay the cheque amount to the complainant. Instead the petitioner sold not pay the land to other co-accused persons. Thus, according to the complainant she neither has the land 27th FEBRUARY, 2014 #71 under her possession, nor has received the amount. The said complaint was sent for further investigation under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. to the Police Station, Chomu. Upon receipt of the complaint, the police chalked out a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 224/13 for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Jhabar Swami, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contention before this Court: firstly the case relates to sale of land, and to recover of money. Therefore the case is basically of "civil nature". However a case of civil nature is being given color of criminal case for ulterior motive. Secondly, by filing of FIR, the investigating agency has been used as recovery officer. Thus, filing of FIR tantamount to abuse of the process of law and of the Court. Thirdly, the complainant has already filed a criminal case for offence under Sec. 138 of the Act. In the said case cognizance has already been taken against the petitioner. Therefore two criminal proceedings cannot continue on the basis of the same set of facts. Lastly there is no allegation in the present FIR which makes out an offence under Sec. 420 IPC. Hence the present FIR needs to be interfered with.