MUKNA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 120/2004 P. S. Chhaper registered against him upon the complaint filed by Prahlad Singh - non-petitioner No. 2 for offence under Sections 406 and 410 IPC.

(2.) IT is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per complainant, he purchased a tractor bearing No. RJ-10-R- 4825 from Mahendra Finance Company, Churu in August, 2002. IT is further stated that as per allegation on 2. 4. 2004, his known person Shri Gopalram Swami and petitioner came to the complainant and asked for purchase of said tractor. At that time, some other villagers, Jodh Singh, Narayan Kheria and Gomadaram Nayak were present and in front of them, petitioner accepted the purchase of tractor from the complainant in consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/ -. IT is also stated that Rs. 10,000/- were paid in advance in connection with the consideration so accepted and the delivery of tractor was taken by the petitioner in presence of above said villagers and it was agreed by him that remaining amount will be paid within a period of three months. As per the allegation of the complainant, after completion of three months, he demanded the remaining amount in the month of July, 2004 but the petitioner refused to pay remaining amount and stated that he has sold the tractor further and you are free to take any action against him. Upon complaint, the Police Station Chhaper registered a case against the petitioner under Section 420 and 120 IPC and commenced investigation. IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per allegation it is a civil dispute and no case for criminal proceedings is made out against the petitioner. therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioner is required to be quashed. IT is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a concocted story has been framed by the complainant against the petitioner and he has nothing to do with the purchase of tractor, which is said to be belonging to the complainant and this FIR is politically motivated and false. IT is further contended that in assembly election, the non-petitioner No. 2 and Gopal Das Swami voted for BJP's candidate and supported him but the petitioner is belonging to Congress Party, therefore, due to pressure of Gopal Das Swami and MLA - Manohar Singh, this false complaint has been filed against him. IT is also contended that as per the FIR, there is no written agreement for sale between the petitioner and the complainant, which clearly shows that the complaint is false. Therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this FIR has been filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 is abuse of process of the Court and to settle the political scores and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said tractor. Therefore, the FIR is required to be quashed. He has further contended that no case is made out against him for which even any investigation is required. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards certain judgments in which scope of Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been enumerated. In support of his arguments, he has cited before the judgments of Bheru Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1985 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 232), S. K. Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 136) = (RLW 2004 (4) Raj. 2209), Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 136, Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 225), Almi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 214) Devilal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 135 ). While citing the aforesaid judgments, he prayed for quashing of the FIR.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant argues that even oral agreement can be arrived at in between the parties and if any party is violating the conditions, then, it is open for other party to take recourse of law for the purpose of relief. He has invited attention of this Court towards the definition of contract enumerated in contract law in which even oral contract is valid.