PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.215/2008 dated 26.11.2008 of Police Station, Degana, District Nagaur registered at the instance of respondent No.2.

(2.) In the FIR, the respondent No.2 has contended that he was partner of firm Zenith & Company along with his mother and one Bastimal son of Ladoo Ram, resident of Padu Kallan, District Nagaur. It is also contended that the said partnership firm was constituted on 26.02.1980 and dissolved on 05.11.1983 and thereafter, the above named firm was merged into M/s Zenith Gwar Gum Industries Private Ltd. (for short 'the company' hereinafter). It is alleged that when the complainant and his mother were in the partnership firm of the company up to 1983, they had executed a power of attorney in favour of accused No.1 Bastimal, however, the said power of attorney came to an end with the dissolution of the partnership firm in the year 1983 and on account of death of his mother but Bastimal had entered into a criminal conspiracy with other persons including the petitioner-Pradeep Kumar and sold the land of the company while using the said power of attorney, which was in more existence after dissolution of the partnership firm. It is further alleged in the FIR that after dissolution of the partnership firm, all the property of the said firm merged into the company and was mortgaged with the Bank for obtaining loans, and accused No.1 Bastimal fraudulently sold the land of the company by using the said power of attorney, which was non-existent and, therefore, has committed the offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. In the complaint, it is alleged that the said offences were committed by Bastimal after entering into a criminal conspiracy with the persons, who have purchased the land including the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned FIR while contending that from bare reading of the contents of the FIR, no offence against the petitioner is made out. The land of the company was sold by Bastimal as being the Director of the company and while selling the said land, he referred to the power of attorney executed by the complainant in the year 1980. It is also contended that the petitioner was not aware about the dissolution of the partnership firm or about the non-existence of the power of attorney executed by the complainant-respondent No.2 and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for commission of any crime as alleged in the impugned FIR. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is bonafide purchaser and has no idea about the business transactions or relations between the respondent No.2 and the main accused Bastimal and, therefore, the impugned FIR qua the petitioner may be quashed.