VIJENDRA DHAKA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 587/2014 dated 24.09.2014 of Police Station, Nokha, District Bikaner, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 365, 382, 323, 384 and 143 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the impugned FIR, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has alleged that on 20.08.2014, petitioner-Vijendra Dhaka along with other persons came to his house and forcibly took him away in his Bolero Jeep. It is further alleged that the petitioner has threatened him and asked him to give an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is also alleged that when the complainant-respondent No. 2 has shown his inability to pay the said amount, the petitioner took the complainant-respondent No. 2 on pistol point and threatened him to arrange the money as demanded. The complainant-respondent No. 2, thereafter, contacted to Srikishan at Delhi and asked him to arrange money in Jaipur. Srikishan arranged the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in Jaipur, which was paid to the person came on behalf of the petitioner. It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that now the petitioner is again demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- from him and, therefore, he has lodged this report. On receiving this complaint, the police has registered the impugned FIR and the matter is under investigation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact no such incident as alleged in the impugned FIR has taken place and the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the impugned FIR the incident took place on 20.08.2014, however, the impugned FIR has been lodged on 24.09.2014 i.e. after more than one month and no explanation is offered on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 to suggest the what prevented him or his father to file impugned FIR immediately. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from long time financial transactions between the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2 are going on and the complainant-respondent No. 2 is owing amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2 has lodged false FIR only with the intention not to pay the amount to the petitioner. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2, wherein the complainant-respondent No. 2 has admitted to pay the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by 25.08.2014.