NITU AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 14.03.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby revision petition filed by petitioner was dismissed and the order of cognizance dated 07.07.2018 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan was upheld.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case are that FIR No.248/2015 was registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur wherein it was alleged by complainant-respondent No.2 that an agreement to sale was executed between complainant and Hari Mohan Agarwal and petitioner. The sale consideration was Rs.1,35,00,000/-. It is mentioned in the FIR that petitioner and Hari Mohan Agarwal wanted to cheat the complainant and they have refused to get the sale-deed executed. Police after investigation submitted charge- sheet against Hari Mohan Agarwal. Police however, submitted negative final report in relation to the petitioner. On filing of negative final report protest petition was filed by the complainant. Learned Magistrate without recording the statement of complainant directed the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the matter. Aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate directing re- investigation of the matter, petitioner and Hari Mohan Agarwal filed a Criminal Misc. Petition No.6153/2016 which was allowed by the High Court and the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate directing re-investigation was set aside. The Investigating Officer thereafter again submitted negative final report. Trial Court took cognizance in protest petition filed by the complainant. Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by impugned order dated 14.3.2019. It is informed that now charges have also been framed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence namesake against the petitioner. As per the complaint an agreement was executed on 22.7.2012, but complainant has not filed any suit for specific performance and he cannot claim the refund of money as his claim has become time barred. In order to put undue pressure on the petitioner, complainant with aid of police wants to recover money. It is also contended that the document produced by the complainant wherein he has mentioned that agreement has taken place between the petitioner and the complainant does not bear signatures of the petitioner. There is no document to connect the petitioner with the crime. It is contended that from bare reading of the FIR it is evident that the dispute is of civil nature and no offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is made out and for this reason the Investigating Officer has submitted negative final report. It is also contended that amount of Rs.78,00,000/- has been returned back to the complainant in cash. It was also contended that legal notice has been served upon the petitioner seeking specific performance after lapse of six years. The Court below has not carefully considered the negative final report. Delay in filing the FIR has not been explained.