MOHINI DEVI AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issues in both the applications are identical and they relate to the same controversy, hence they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that earlier FIR No.215/2012 was lodged at Police Station Dadabari, Kota stating therein that the land has been sold to him by petitioner Mohini Devi and her family members i.e. husband and son, Girraj Goyal and Jintendra Goyal showing himself as owner of land, whereas they were not having ownership of the land in Khasra No.1272/1803 and 1826. In spite of this that the petitioners were not having the ownership of the said land, it has been sold on false assertion and Rs.10,00,000/- has been procured from them. Contention of the petitioners is that they are having agreement to sell in their favour, which has been executed by owner-Pushpa Devi and same has been clarified in the agreement executed between the parties on 25/9/2012 and no false representation has been made by the petitioners and one FIR No.484/2013 was lodged at Police Station Nayapupra, Kota for the same land on the strength of agreement dated 25/9/2012. Contention of the petitioners is that they are ready to execute the sale-deed but the complainant have not paid the money. Notices have been exchanged between the parties and when FIR No.215/2012 has been lodged, husband of the petitioner-Mohini Devi has been arrested, second agreement to sell has been executed and affidavit has also been sworn by complainant-Tarun Modi that the compromise has been taken place between the parties and no dispute subsists between the parties on which Girraj has been allowed bail and application for cancellation of bail has also been rejected looking to the fact of execution of new agreement dated 25/9/2012 and the court was of the opinion that the case is of civil nature. Even contention of the petitioners is that earlier agreement dated 30/5/2011 is not in existence, which has been replaced by the new agreement dated 25/9/2012, where a specific assertion has been made that petitioners are the owners of the property only on the strength of agreement to sell in their favour by Pushpa Devi and no false assertion has been made by them. They have been implicated falsely and just to pressurize them, these false FIRs have been made in a case of civil nature. Further contention of the petitioners is that as regards petitioner-Jitendra Goyal, he is not the executant of any of the agreements. He is only the witness in second agreement dated 25/9/2012. Contention of the petitioners is that number of cases are pending against the complainant. Hence, petitioners should be released on bail.