RAM PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-complainant has filed instant criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dtd. 21/3/2022 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, dismissing his criminal revision petition No. 2/2022 and affirming the order dtd. 23/12/2021 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby and whereunder while dismissing the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the negative final report in FIR No. 17/2019 registered for offence under Ss. 420, 406 and 447 IPC has been accepted with observations that the dispute sought to be raised in the FIR is purely of civil nature.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

(3.) It appears from the record that the petitioner-complainant claimed to have purchased three shops through an agreement to sell dtd. 7/12/1987 for a consideration Rs.13,000.00 from one Shravan Kumar Kumawat. Indisputably, on the same date, power of attorney in respect of three shops was executed in favour of Hari Narayan Sharma (Non-petitioner No. 2 who happens to be brother in law of petitioner). Petitioner made a criminal complaint that Non-petitioner No. 2, as a power of attorney holder, executed sale deed in favour of his wife in the year 2018, whereas, his power of attorney has come to an end in the year 2013, after death of Shravan Kumar Kumawat. During investigation, it revealed that wife of non-petitioner No. 2 is sister of petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 wanted to purchase the property in the name of his wife, but because of non- availability of required identity documents, the agreement to sale was got entered into, in the name of petitioner, who is brother of non-petitioner No. 2- wife. According to non-petitioner No. 2, he sold shops in questions in favour of his wife in the year 1989 itself, and possession of the property is lying with him since 1987 onwards. In this criminal complaint, petitioner claimed himself to be bona fide purchaser of land of three shops, though does not dispute the possession to be with non-petition No. 2.