PARMESHWAR LAL GANERIWALLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.19/2013 registered with Police Station, Mukundgarh (Jhunjhunu) for the offence punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

(2.) Heard contentions of both the sides, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR impugned is not sustainable since it has falsely been lodged to harass the petitioner, who has been an employer of complainant-respondent no.2. Petitioner is a senile person of more than 90 years of age, who reposed his faith in his complainant employee in helping alienating property, which was owned and possessed by the petitioner at Mukundgarh, the FIR impugned is lodged belatedly after about 15 years and delay is unexplained, relying upon Apex Court Authority in Suresh vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava (2005) 3 SCC 670 and Anand Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 WLC (UC) 708, it has been urged that on the sole ground of delay, said FIR is liable to be quashed. Referring Annexure-R5 it has further been contended that contents of R5 are enough to infer that FIR impugned is bogus and so far as alleged agreement to sell is concerned, there is no privity of contract between the executant of said agreement and respondent Pradeep Kumar being a stranger has got no say because nothing alleged has been perperated on basis of alleged agreement nor any injury has been caused to respondent Pradeep Kumar, so the petition be allowed and FIR No.19/2013 registered with PS Mukundgarh, Jhunjhunu be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that contents of FIR No.19/2013 are self speaking since agreement to sell, specific performance of which was sought, is an admitted document and petitioner has compromised to execute sale in response to said agreement to sell, even sale-deed has been executed consequent thereto and petitioner has maliciously acted illegally by fabricating an agreement to sell to frustrate, rights already vested in favour of the respondent depicting that questioned property was agreed to be sold to someone else, prior to the agreement executed in favour of the respondent/complainant, which was in detriment to the interest of respondent, on the basis of a forged agreement to sell, agreement executed in favour of the respondent was unnecessarily being suspected nevertheless, valid agreement to sell, executed in favour of the respondent and due execution of sale-deed was effected on the basis of said agreement, in favour of the respondent, which is enough to establish veracity, it shows that petitioner willfully acted in fabricating false agreement to sell, which is manifestly bogus since date of the agreement is shown prior to the date of purchase of the stamp paper, upon which alleged text has been scribed, so act of the petitioner is itself explicit and there is no ground to quash FIR, interim order staying investigation of the FIR, needs to be vacated to facilitate investigation for coming FIR to its logical end, so the petition deserves to be dismissed.