SABRI DEVI JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioners with the prayer for quashing of F.I.R. No. 269/2019 dt.10/10/2019 registered at Police Station Ganj District Ajmer for offences punishable under Ss. 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has submitted that the impugned F.I.R., alongwith all subsequent criminal proceedings, is prima- facie illegal and perverse. Counsel has further submitted that previously, a different F.I.R. was lodged against the complainant in 2014, wherein he was accused of committing theft of ancestral jewelry but the matter was compromised. Counsel has also submitted that on account of business relations, certain amount has been given, taken and then returned back to the complainant pertaining to business transactions. By taking advantage of these entries in the bank accounts, a false story has been prepared by the complainant with regard to agreement to sale. The complainant had broken the lock and removed costly items belonging to the petitioners from the alleged property-in- dispute i.e. Flat No. 3 and connected premise, including bank passbook and jewelry items, for which an F.I.R. No. 271/2019 came to be lodged by the petitioners. Counsel has contended that the complainant has also given notice of specific performance on 24/9/2019 pertaining to the false oral agreement to sale for which the petitioners have given reply on 3/10/2019 denying the existence of any such agreement and the complainant lodged the impugned F.I.R. on 10/10/2019. Therefore, the complainant wants to impart criminal colours to a civil dispute. Counsel has further contended that the Investigating Officer has also failed to consider that if the notice for specific performance is being given by complainant then how a criminal case would arise from such a situation. Pertaining to extortion and forcefully getting documents signed, a separate criminal complaint has also been lodged before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ajmer. Lastly, Counsel has prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned F.I.R., alongwith all subsequent criminal proceedings, be quashed and set aside.

(3.) In support of his submissions, during the course of arguments, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Anr., AIR 2019 SC 210, (ii) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2000) 4 SCC 168 and (iii) Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr., (2009 AIR SC 3191.