CHENA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on the record.

(2.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the validity and correctness of the FIR No.36/2012 registered at the Falna, District Pali. The respondent No.2 complainant filed an FIR against the petitioner through a complaint in the year 2002. It was alleged that the petitioner had been allotted a 99 years lease hold plot of land by the State Government on 13.2.1986 for use in leather industry. The petitioner fell in need of money. He approached the complainant and offered to sell half of the land leased to him by the State Government. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 3.12.1996 and the complainant made payment of different sums of money against the said agreement to the accused from time to time. The accused allegedly promised that he would get the nature of the land changed from the State Government and as soon as he got the permission of sale, he would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. The complainant procured the Jamabandi of the land on 6.2.2012 on which he came to know that the accused had got the nature of the land use converted from industrial to Hathkargha industry and the khatedari land was convered to lease hold land. The complainant alleged that by not executing the registered sale deed, the accused committed the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are accepted to be true on their face value then also the same do not constitute any offence. If the complainant was aggrieved by any inaction of the accused in getting the sale registered, he should have filed a suit for specific performance of agreement. Having failed to do so, the complainant has now entangled the petitioner in this frivolous prosecution. He, therefore, prays that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.