CHAND RATAN DARGAD Vs. STATE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have also gone through the investigation file of FIR No. 259/98 of Police Station Kotgatee, Bikaner.

(2.) Sunil Rampuria lodged a report at police station stating therein that on 13.10.1996 he went to Bada of Chand Ratan situated in Rani Bazar and told that he was interested to purchase a residential land out of city in Bikaner. The petitioner stated that he had 1,50,000 yards of abadi land situated in Shivbadi in the area of old Ballabh Garden and he was interested to sell it. At that time Mr. Anwar was present. Some documents were shown to the complainant and he believed that the land was in the name of the petitioner accused. He agreed to purchase the land at the cost of Rs. 10.00 per sq. yard. Thus an oral agreement took place between the parties and it was agreed that the complainant will pay Rs. 5,00,000.00 upto April, 1996 and thereafter registered sale deed will be executed in the month of July, 1996 and the balance amount would be paid at the time of execution of the documents. Complainant gave cheques on different dates to the accused petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000.00 and asked thereafter to execute the sale deed, but the petitioner accused went of procrastinating. The complainant then went to Bada in July, 1996 with Anwar and found that some persons were sitting and they made complaints regarding the land and came to know that the land was in the name of one Allanoor and the petitioner was his power of attorney holder and he had made an agreement with one Devi Singh, on behalf of his power of attorney holder. Then the complainant asked the petitioner as to why did he dupe him, the petitioner accused beseeched to forgive him. Thus, the complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000.00 and the accused petitioner despite assurances did not return the money. Case under Sections 420 and 406 Penal Code was registered and is pending investigation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submitted that there were business relations between the petitioner and the complainant and he did borrow a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 by cheques. But since he was not carrying on his business well, he was not able to pay back the money. The complainant instead of filing a civil suit took to the short cut method to recover the amount and involved him in criminal case. He also submitted that no notice was sent to the petitioner and that no oral agreement of such a big transaction could be made. He also submitted that though the agreement is said to have taken place on 13.10.1996 yet the dates of the cheques which are 8.2.1996 and 7.4.1996 indicate that there were some other transactions and not the alleged one. He also submitted that the area of land was about 1,50,000 yards and the complainant knew it very well that it could not be available at such a low rate of Rs. 10.00 per sq. yard. It means that there were many transactions between the parties. He also submitted that the FIR itself mentions such a case which is improbable and the complainant is himself not definite as to what was the case against the petitioner as the first information report has been registered under both the sections i.e. 406 and 420 IPC. He submitted that the case may be either under section 406 of under Sec. 420 IPC. He has, therefore, prayed that the first information report and subsequent proceedings may be quashed. He has relied on B. Ramesh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 1998 Cr.LJ page 580 and submitted that the complainant maliciously filed the FIR to make good his civil wrong. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has controverted all the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.