SURAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.134/2017 registered at the Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur for the offences under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that non-petitioner/respondent No.2 Moti Ram lodged a criminal complaint under Sec. 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. against Chukli Devi, Moola Ram, Ramniwas Raju and Harkaran for the offences under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC. It is alleged that after the death of his grandfather, out of total land, 1/3rd share of land was mutated in the name of petitioner's father Jaggu Ram, three sons of Jaguu Ram including the respondent No.2 got 1/3rd share in the said land. It is further alleged that the complainant is an unmarried and blind person whereas Jaggu Ram is an old man aged more than 90 years and he is mentally unstable, sick and infirm. As per the allegations, brother of the complainant Mr. Moola Ram hatched a conspiracy with other accused and got transfer of 1/3rd share of land in the name of his wife Smt.Chukli from Jaggu Ram by way of execution of registered sale deed dtd. 30/10/2014 for a consideration of Rs.6.5 lacs. It is further alleged that remaining 2/3rd land was mortgaged at HDFC Bank, Kishangarh for which loan amounting to Rs.8.5 lacs was availed by the accused in the name of Jaggu Ram. Police after registering the FIR, investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet against co-accused Chukli, Raju Ram and Moola Ram under Ss. 418, 420, 467, 468, 120-B and 197 of the IPC whereas investigation with respect to present petitioner was kept pending under Sec. 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registered sale deed for 1/3rd share of land was executed in the year 2014 by Jaggu Ram in favour of Smt. Chukli W/o Moola Ram whereas the loan application was submitted in the month of March 2015. He further submits that after making all inquiries from the Revenue Department and other sources, following due procedure for sanction, the loan was disbursed by the Bank. He further submits that there is a certificate issued by the Tehsildar as also a report of the Sarpanch of Panchayat concerned the loan was disbursed. The aforesaid FIR was registered in the Year 2017 for using undue influence to settle the family dispute by the respondent. He further submits that present petitioner is a bank employee and he worked in a good faith and sanctioned the loan after following the prescribed procedure for granting of loan. It is further submitted that the said loan amount was repaid on 4/6/2022 thus, the mortgage property was released by the bank. He further submits that dispute between Moti Ram respondent No.2 and Moola Ram and others is pending before the revenue authority and the same is not having any concerned with the present petitioner. Lastly, he submits that the allegations made by the complainant inter se with him and the other accused as there was no privity of contact between petitioner and respondent No.2. Learned counsel submits that entire proceedings against present petitioner is abuse of process of law.