HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Application Criminal No. 1102 / 2016
in
S.B. Crl Misc. Petition No.3138/2014
Shashi Kant Vyas

—-Petitioner
Versus
State Anr.

—-Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Application Criminal No. 1103 / 2016
in
S.B. Crl Misc. Petition No.3137/2014
Shashi Kant Vyas

—-Petitioner
Versus
State Anr.

—-Respondent
S.B. Application Criminal No. 1104 / 2016
in
S.B. Crl Misc. Petition No.3136/2014
Shashi Kant Vyas

—-Petitioner
Versus
State Anr.

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Bora, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. A.K. Singh.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyaya, PP. assisted by Mr.
Shriman Lal Meena, Addl. DCP (E), Jodhpur.

Mr. Moti Singh.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
Date of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018

These three petitions under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. have been

filed by the accused petitioner Shashi Kant seeking quashing of

three identical F.I.Rs. No.523/2014, 400/2014 and 524/2014

respectively registered against him at the P.S. Udaimandir, District
(2 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. and

hence, are being decided by this common order.

Facts in brief are that 30 persons including the petitioner

herein jointly purchased 13 bighas of land from Khasra No.57,

Village Chopasani, District Jodhpur through a registered sale deed

executed in the year 1992. After execution of the said registered

sale deed, the 30 purchasers bifurcated the property in separate

plots after carving out roads etc. For division and identification of

respective shares, mutation entries were got recorded in the

names of the purchasers. The petitioner claims that this

bifurcation is also recorded in the Jamabandis prepared by the

Revenue Department. The petitioner’s name was mentioned in the

agreement at Sr.No.27. A case has been set up in the petition that

the petitioner’s share in the chunk of land as after bifurcation was

ad-measuring 1328 sq.yards. The petitioner claims to have divided

this chunk of 1328 sq.yards into 9 plots of different size and

numbered them as Sr.No.2 to 10. The land fell in the vicinity of

Jodhpur Development Authority (‘JDA’ for short), who conducted

proceedings under Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act and

pattas have been issued to some of the original purchasers.

Feeling dire need of money, the petitioner claims to have sold

plots No.8, 9 and 10 ad-measuring 200 sq.yards to the

complainants herein through registered sale deeds executed on

5.8.1995. It was categorically mentioned in the sale deeds that

possession was handed over to the respective purchasers. The

three purchasers, complainants herein have now initiated the
(3 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

instant prosecution of the petitioner by filing three separate F.I.Rs.

No.523/2014, 400/2014 and 524/2014 respectively registered at

the P.S. Udaimandir, Jodhpur for above offences. It is alleged that

the petitioner acted with a grossly fraudulent motive and intention

while selling them the plots in question. The petitioner was known

to the complainants and he used to frequent their homes. He

fraudulently lured the complainants into purchasing the plots in

question by giving them an impression that he had carved out a

scheme named Sidharth Nagar in chunk of land. Thereupon, as

mentioned above, the complainants purchased the plots in

question for a consideration of Rs.24,000/- each from the

petitioner through registered sale deeds. The complainants further

alleged that they used to go and check their plots from time to

time. In the year 2008, the complainants claim to have acquired

information that the mutation of the disputed land had never been

entered in the name of the accused Shashi Kant Vyas and that he

had surrendered entire land of Khasra No.57 in the Jodhpur

Development Authority (JDA) with the intention of fraudulently

usurping the plots purchased by complainants as well. The

complainants too approached the JDA and made an endeavour to

procure pattas for their plots but were told that the pattas could

only be issued in the name of Shashi Kant. Thereafter, the

complainants claim to have approached Shashi Kant and

requested him to get the pattas in their names. However, soon

thereafter, Shashi Kant approached the complainants and asked

them to give up their plots, return the documents and take back
(4 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

the consideration amount. Upon this, the complainants became

suspicious about his motives. Finally, the complainants were told

that they could not get Pattas of any plot whatsoever and that

they were free to take whatever action they desired. With these

aspertions, the impugned F.I.Rs. No.523/2014, 400/2014 and

524/2014 respectively came to be lodged against the petitioner

Shashi Kant Vyas at the P.S. Udaimandir for the offences under

Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. and investigation was commenced.

The accused petitioner Shashikant has challenged these

F.I.Rs. by filing these three misc. petitions No.3138/2014 (F.I.R.

No.523/2014), 3137/2014 (F.I.R. No.524/2014) and 3136/2014

(F.I.R. No.400/2014) before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

This Court gave interim protection to the petitioner in all the three

matters and directed him to join investigation. Admittedly, the

petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer on

number of occasions and has presented all his documents. In the

hearing held on 4.4.2016, this Court was apprised that the

petitioner neither applied for nor did he acquire Pattas of the plots

sold to the complainants. By way of a subsequent development,

the complainants’ plots came in a width of 75 meters from each

side of the highway which was declared to be in the green corridor

by the State Government’s Urban Development Department and

that is why, the JDA was not issuing the pattas to them. After

considering the import of these submissions, the Court directed

the Investigating Officer to get a report of demarcation of land

from the concerned Patwari. However, the report dated 26.8.2017
(5 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

which was submitted for the Court’s perusal was totally per-

functory. Thereupon, the matters were again taken up on

1.8.2017 on which date, the Patwari JDA as well as Patwari

(Revenue) concerned appeared in the Court and stated that

physical verification of the disputed lands could not be done owing

to lack of information and coordination. The Investigating Officer

present in the Court stated that the predecessor Investigating

Officer being the Additional Commissioner of Police had already

completed the investigation concluding that the accused petitioner

is responsible for the offences attributed to him.

As the entire dispute revolves around the measurement,

demarcation and identification of the lands in question and since

there is no dispute that the petitioner while selling the plots to the

complainant had a valid title, this Court gave a pertinent direction

to the Investigating Officer on 1.8.2017 to get the physical

verification of the land in question carried out in presence of the

Patwaris and parties concerned. Finally, a report was prepared in

compliance of the above directions and was presented for the

Court’s perusal. The relevant conclusions and findings of the

factual report dated 31.8.2017 are reproduced hereinbelow for the

sake of ready reference:

^^ekuuh; U;k;ky; funsZ’kkuqlkj vuql/a kku djus ij fuEu gkykr ik;s x;s %

7- ?kVuk LFky [kljk ua- 57 pkSikluh tkxhj dkQh cM+k gSA ftlesa izkFkhZ o

vizkFkhZ] iVokjh;ksa }kjk crk;s x;s] iwoZ eqfrZck QnZ uD”kk utjh vuqlkj pkjksa rjQ

iV~Vh;k jksih gqbZ gSA jksM+ dh rjQ ,d fiyj cuk dj yksgs ds pnj pM+k dj dPph

[kkus dh gksVy cuh gqbZ gSA tehu esa ekStqnk le; esa cktjk] eqax oxSjk dh Qly
(6 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

[kM+h gSA ?kVuk LFky dk ohfM;ksa rS;kj lh-Mh- cukdj lh-Mh- o QksVksxzkQ “kkfey

ikoyh fd;s x;sA

8- mifLFkr iVokjh pkS[kk o tsMh,s iVokjh dks ekSdk QnZ rS;kj dj is”k djus ds

funsZ”k nsus ij Vhe Hkw- vfHkys[k ckxk] iVokjh pkS[kk] iVokjh ts-Mh-,s- us la;qDr :i

ls ekSdk QnZ rS;kj dj is”k dh fd fookfnr Hkw-la-8] 9] 10 ds Øsrk Jherh jk/kk

VaMu] Jh pkSFkey vjksM+k] JhukFk vjksM+k] foØsrk Jh “kf”kdkar ,oa ekSrfcjku ds :c:

ns[kk x;k] ekSds ij mDr [kljk uEcj 57 tks/kiqj tSlyesj ckbZikl ij fLFkr gSA

ftlesa dqN fgLls ij cktjk eqax xokj dh Qly cksbZ gqbZ gS] ,oa dqN fgLls ij

nqdku] pkj fnokjh iV~Vh;k ,oa /keZdkUVk vkfn cus gq,s gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp

U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj }kjk xzke pkSikluh tkxhj ds [kljk u- 57 esa fookfnr Hkw[k.M

la[;k 8] 9] 10 dk lhekadu pkgk x;k Fkk ijUrq jktLo jsdMZ tekcUnh esa mDr

[kljk uEcj 57 jdck 13 ch?kk 30 O;fDr;ksa ds uke “kkeykrh ntZ gSA miyC/k uD”kk

yV~Vk esa rjehe ugha gS] vr% mDr fookfnr Hkw[k.M la[;k 08] 09] 10 dk jktLo

LFky ij lhekadu fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA

 jktLo jsdMZ tekcUnh esa [kljk u- 57 jdck 13 ch?kk Hkwfe “kkeykrh 30

O;fDr;ska ds uke ntZ gSA blesa bu O;fDr;ksa ds vyxvyx fgLls ugha [kksy

j[ks gSA foØsrk Jh “kf”kdkUr }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s foØ; vfHkys[k vuqlkj

“kf”kdkUr dk fgLlk 1331 oxZ xt curk gSA ftlesa ls rhu vyxvyx

cspkuukek vuqlkj 603 oxZ xt Hkwfe cspku dh gqbZ gS “ks’k jdck 728 oxZ xt

Hkwfe uxj lq/kkj U;kl tks/kiqj ds uke ntZ gSA [kljk ua- 57 jdck 13 ch?kk

Hkwfe ds vykok [kljk u- 302@57 jdck 3-7 ch?kk xSj eqedhu lM+d] [kljk

ua- 156@57 jdck 5-10 xSj eqedhu lM+d lkoZtfud fuekZ.k foHkkx ds uke

tekcUnh esa ntZ gSA ftl ij orZeku esa tks/kiqj tSlyesj ckbZikl py jgk

gSA
(7 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

 tks/kiqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k tks/kiqj ds iVokjh if”pe ds vuqlkj xzke pkSikluh

tkxhj [kljk ua- 57 ds dqN [kkrsnkjksa us ¼dqy 06½ Hkw[k.Mksa ds vkoklh; iV~Vs

uxj lq/kkj U;kl tks/kiqj }kjk tkjh fd;s gq,s gSA ftudk dqy {ksQy 4350-

98 oxZ xt gS] ,oa dqy 04 [kkrsnkjksa dh Hkwfe 2643-96 oxZ xt dh 90 ch

uxj lq/kkj U;kl tks/kiqj }kjk dh xbZ gSA

 orZeku esa xzke pkSikluh tkxhj [kljk ua- 57 dk izkf/kdj.k dk;kZy; esa

ysvkÅV Iyku vuqeksfnr ugha gS] ftlesa fookfnr Hkw[k.M la[;k 08] 09] 10

dk lhekadu ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA QnZ ekSdk layXu gSA

9- mifLFkr Vhe dks [kljk ua- 57 dk uki dj uki crkus ds funsZ”k nsus ij

mifLFkr Vhe iVokjh oxSjk us [kljk ua- 57 dk uki djuk “kq: fd;k x;k] blls

igys gh izdj.k vkjksih Jh “kf”kdkUr O;kl o mlds lg;ksfx;ks us vkifr djrs gq,

dgka fd dh ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fookfnr Hkw[k.M 08]09]10 dk gh lhekadu djus

ds funsZ”k gSA vki iw.kZ [kljs dk uki ugha dj ldrs gS vkSj djsaxs rks fdl ds vkns”k

ls djsxs ftl ij mifLFkr Vhe us iw.kZ [kljs dk uki djus ls euk dj fn;kA

10- izkFkhZ i{k ls mlds nLrkost pkgus ij Nk;kizfr;k is”k dh tks iwoZ ls gh

ikoyh ij miyC/k gSA

11- izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ us vuqla/kku djus ij viusvius dFku o iwNrkN uksV dh

rkbZn dh gSA

12- vizkFkhZ }kjk nLrkost Nk;kizfr;ka is”k dh tks Hkh iwoZ esa ikoyh ij miyC/k gS

fQj Hkh vizkFkhZ ds fuosnu ij “kkfey ikoyh fd;s x;sA vizkFkhZ }kjk nLrkostksa ds

layXu fjiksVZ is”k dh ftlds gkykr fuEukuqlkj gS %

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 01 esa fy[kk gS fd fnuakd 26-08-17 dks izkFkhZ dh Hkwfe

[kljk la[;k 57 dk ekSds ij HkkSfrd eqvk;uk ,oa lR;kiu fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ ds fgLls esa vkbZ Hkwfe rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk ifjoknhx.k dks foØ;

(8 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

fd;s x;sA izkFkhZ ds fgLls Hkwfe ds mifoHkkftr Hkw[k.M la[;k 08 o 09] 10 dks

ekSds ij Li’V :i ls fpfUgr djok fn;kA

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku fcydqy vlR; vafdr fd;s gSA D;ksafd fnukad

26-08-17 dks ekSdk ij mifLFkr xfBr Vhe us ekSdk QnZ esa Li”V fy[kk gS

fd jktLo jsdMZ tekcUnh esa mDr [kljk uEcj 57 jdck 13 ch?kk 30

O;fDr;ksa ds uke “kkeykrh ntZ gSA miyC/k uD”kk yV~Vk esa rjehe ugha

gSA mDr fookfnr Hkw[k.M la[;k 08] 09 o 10 dk jktLo Lrj ij

lhekadu fd;k tkuk lEHko ugh gS] rFkk uk gh vizkFkhZ }kjk fnuakd 26-08-

17 dks ekSds ij izkFkhZ dks csps x;s IykV dh txg crkbZ gSA vizkFkhZx.k

}kjk ekSdk ipkZ ij lgefr nh gS ftlesa vafdr fd;k gqvk gS fd fookfnr

Hkw[k.M la[;k 08] 09] 10 dk jktLo Lrj ij lhekadu fd;k tkuk lEHko

ugha gSA blfy, lhekadu ugha gqvk gSA

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 02 esa fy[kk gS fd iathd`r foØ; foys[k fnukad 08-

12-1992 ds }kjk 30 O;fDr;ksa us “kkeykrh :i ls xzke pkSikluh tkxhj esa

[kljk uEcj 57 jdck 13 ch?kk d`f’k Hkwfe [kjhn dh rFkk lg[kkrsnkjku }kjk

mDr foØ; foys[k e; vafdr viusvius fgLls dh Hkwfe dks vkilh lgefr

ls ekSds ij vuqikfrd caVokMk dj ekSds dh fLFkfr vuqlkj uD”kk cuk dj

lHkh fgLlsnkjku }kjk mDr uD”ks ij viuh lgefr Lo:i viusvius

gLrk{kj fd;s] mDr foys[k fnukad 08-12-1992 izfr ,oa caVokM+k uD”kk layXu

dh gSA

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd

[kljk uEcj 57 esa 30 O;fDr;ksa us fey dj tehu [kjhnh gSa] ftlds cspkuukek esa

vizkFkhZ Jh “kf”kdkUr dk flfj;y uEcj 27 ij uke ntZ gS layXu uD”kk dh

Nk;kizfr izekf.kr ugh gS rFkk fnuakd 26-08-17 dks xfBr Vhe }kjk bl lEcU/k esa
(9 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

crk;k dh jktLo jsdMZ tekcUnh esa [kljk uEcj 57 jdck 13 ch?kk Hkwfe “kkeykrh

30 O;fDr;ksa ds uke ntZ gS] blesa bu O;fDr;ksa ds vyxvyx fgLls ugha [kksy j[ks

gSA foØsrk Jh “kf”kdkUr }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s foØs; vfHkys[k vuqlkj “kf”kdkUr

dk fgLlk 1331 oxZxt curk gSA ftlesa ls 03 vyxvyx cspkuukek vuqlkj 603

oxZ xt Hkwfe cspku dh gqbZ gS “ks’k jdck 728 oxZxt Hkwfe uxj lq/kkj U;kl tks/kiqj

ds uke ntZ gSA orZeku esa xzke pkSikluh tkxhj [kljk uEcj 57 dk izkf/kdj.k

dk;kZy; esa ysvkÅV Iyku vuqeksfnr ugah gSA ftlesa fookfnr Hkw[k.M la[;k

08]09]10 dk lhekadu ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 02 esa mi fcUnq la[;k 02 esa fy[kk gS fd izkFkhZ ds

fgLls esa vkbZ Hkwfe dk ekSds ij mifoHkktu dj izkFkhZ us fnukad 05-08-1995

dks Jherh jk/kk VaMu dks Hkw[k.M la[;k 08 eki 201 oxZxt Jh pkSFkey

vjksM+k dks Hkw[k.M la[;k 09 eki 201 oxZxt rFkk JhukFk vjksM+k dks Hkw[k.M

la[;k 10 eki 201 oxZxt dqy 603 oxZxt Hkwfe dk foØ; dj dCtk lqiqnZ

dj fn;k Fkk ftldk uD”kk izn”kZ 3 layXu gSA

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku

fcYdqy vlR; ntZ fd;k gS D;ksafd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k ls :i;s izkIr dj vkt

fnu rd izkFkhZx.k dks IykWVksa dk dCtk lqiqnZ ugha fd;k gSA cspkuukek fnuakd 08-08-

1995 dk voyksdu djus ls jftLVªh djokrs le; fdlh dh Hkh lk[k ugha Mkyh gqbZ

gS ,oa Hkw[k.M dk uD”kk rFkk J`[kykc) nLrkost Hkh ugh gS vkjksih “kf”kdkUr us

lEiw.kZ nLrkostkr miiath;u dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djus dk crk;k tcfd ikoyh ij

miyC/k miiath;u dk;kZy; ls lEiw.kZ izekf.kr nLrkost dh izfr;k ekaxus ij dsoy

jftLVªh cspkuukek dh izfr gh miyC/k djokbZ gS ftl ij lk{khx.k ds vykok Øsrk

ds gLrk{kj Hkh ugha gS ftlesa jftLVªh ds le; Hkkjh vfu;ferrk cjruk ik;k x;k
(10 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izn”kZ 3 is”k uD”kk dh Nk;k izfr Hkh vuqeksfnr ugha gS uk gh jktLo

jsdMZ esa izkFkhZ ds uke ls ukekUrj.k Hkjk gqvk gSA

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 02 es mi fcUnq la[;k 03 esa fy[kk gS fd izkFkhZ us

mDr foØ; ds i”pkr vius fgLls dh “ks’k Hkwfe 728¼1331603½ oxZ xt Hkwfe

ds Hkw mi;ksx ifjorZu gsrw izkFkZuk i izdj.k la[;k 2164@08 fnuakd 05-09-

08 uxj lq/kkj U;kl tks/kiqj esa izLrqr dj /kkjk 90 ch dk vkns”k izkIr fd;k

lacaf/kr nLrkost dh izfr izn”kZ 4 layXu dh gSA

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd izdj.k vkjksih }kjk

viuh Hkwfe dk Hkw mi;ksx ifjorZu gsrw izkFkZuk i o’kZ 2008 es uxj lq/kkj U;kl

tks/kiqj esa is”k fd;k exj izkFkhZ }kjk vuqeksfnr uD”kk ugha gS rFkk ikoyh ij

miyC/k nLrkost ds vuqlkj ¼ys vkÅV½ desVh fu.kZ; Øekad 41 i`”B la[;k 02] Øe

la[;k 6 fnukad 24-02-06 vafdr gS tks fd Qjojh 2006 ds gS ijUrq vkjksih

“kf”kdkUr us viuh tehu vxLr 2008 es tks/kiqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k iV~Vs gsrw lefiZr

dh Fkh tks fd rkjh[k es iw.kZ :i ls fHkUurk gSA

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 02 esa mi fcUnq la[;k 04 es fy[kk gS fd ifjoknh Jh

pkSFkey vjksM+k }kjk vius Hkw[k.M la[;k 10 ds Hkw ifjorZu gsrw izkFkZuk i

izdj.k la[;k 193@200809 fnukad 20-01-2009 dks izLrqr fd;kA

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu gs fd izdj.k izkFkhZ Jh pkSFkey

vjksM+k us crk;k fd gesa irk pyk dh “kf”kdkUr gesa csph xbZ tehu dk ts-

Mh-,s- ls iV~Vk mBk jgk gS] rc geus iVokjh ds ikl tkdj irk fd;k rks

gekjs IykV dk jktLo jsdMZ esa E;wVs”ku Hkh ugha gS] rc eSaus fnukad 19-01-2009

dks ts-Mh-,s- esa “kf”kdkUr ds iV~Vs dh dk;Zokgh dks :dokus ds fy;s izkFkZuk

i fn;k] mlds ckn fnukad 20-01-2009 dks eSaus Hkh ts-Mh-,s- ls iV~Vk mBkus
(11 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

ds fy;s vkosnu fd;k FkkA ysfdu “kf”kdkUr }kjk gesa vkt fnu rd gesa csph

xbZ tehu dk dCtk ugha fn;k gSaA

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 02 esa mi fcUnq la[;k 07 esa fy[kk gS fd Jh pkSFkey

vjksM+k us ,d izkFkZuk i izLrqr dj fnukad 13-02-13 dks v/;{k tks/kiqj

fodkl izkf/kdj.k tks/kiqj ds le{k izLrqr fd;k gS] ftlls Li”V gS fd

ifjoknh x.k dks fnukad 13-02-13 rd izkFkhZ }kjk foØ; dh xbZ Hkwfe ds

lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ mtj,rjkt ugha gSA

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd ifjoknh Jh pkSFkey }kjk

crk;k dh eqs mtj ,rjkt D;ksa ugha gSA eSaus rks o”kZ 1995 esa tehu [kjhnh

tc ls ysdj vkt fnu rd “kf”kdkUr ds vkxs ihNs ?kqedj fuosnu dj jgk

gwW] fd eqs esjs [kjhns x;s IykV dk dCtk lqiqnZ djs exj “kf”kdkUr us vkt

fnu rd eqs esjs IykV dk dCtk ugha fn;k gSA

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 02 es mi fcUnq la[;k 08 esa fy[kk gS fd Hkwfe [kljk

la[;k 57 ds if”pe fn”kk esa izkFkhZ ds foØ; foys[k fnukad 08-12-92 ,oa

ifjoknhx.k dks iathd`r foØ; foys[k ls Hkwfe foØ; djus dh fnukad 05-08-

95 ds i”pkr~ ekSds ij jk”Vªh; jktekxZ dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS jkT; ljdkj

uxjh; fodkl }kjk ifji fnukad 25-03-13 tkjh dj jk”Vªh; jktekxZ ds

nksuks vksj 75 QhV gfjr iV~Vh IykaVs”ku gsrq lajf{kr djus dk vkns”k iznku

dj ,sls Hkkx esa fuekZ.k fu”ks/k dj fn;k ijUrq ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k fd mDr 75

QhV gfjr iV~Vh ls lacaf/kr Hkwfe dk LokfeRo lacaf/kr Hkw[k.M/kkjh dk gh jgsxk

ifji fnukad 25-03-13 layXu fd;k gSA

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd izdj.k vkjksih }kjk izkFkhZ

dks o”kZ 1995 es IykWV uEcj 09 dk cspkuukek cukdj iSls izkIr dj fy;s rFkk

izkFkhZ dks IykWV dk uk rks dCtk fn;k uk gh IykV dk yksds”ku crk;k gSA
(12 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

mlds i”pkr tks/kiqj ls tSlyesj ckbZikl lM+d fudyus ij jkT;

ljdkj }kjk mDr ifji tkjh djus ij vkjksih Jh “kf”kdkUr }kjk izkFkhZ dks

viuh tehu jk’Vªh; jkt ekxZ esa pyh tkuk crk jgk gSA tcfd [kljk uEcj

57 esa jksM+ ,oa gfjr iV~Vh dks NksM+dj vkjksih dh Hkwfe vkbZ gqbZ gS exj

vkjksih izkFkhZ dks “kq: ls gh izkFkhZ dks xqejkg dj iSls gM+i dj /kks[kk nsus dh

fu;r jgh gS vxj vkjksih izkFkhZ dks tehu nsuk pkgrk gS rks viuh ihNs dh

tehu esa ls ns ldrk gSA

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 02 esa mi fcUnq la[;k 09 esa fy[kk gS fd ifjoknhx.k

ds Hkw[k.M jkT; ljdkj ds gfjr iV~Vh lEcfU/kr ifji fnukad 25-03-13 esa

mYysf[kr 75 fQV esa vkus ls Lo;a dks gqbZ lEHkkfor gkuh ds dkj.k lksps

les ‘kM+;a ds rgr wBh dgkfu;ka xdj fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ gSA

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd izdj.k izkFkhZ dks

vkjksih }kjk IykV nsus ds lEcU/k esa :i;s o”kZ 1995 esa izkIr dj fy;s

exj izkFkhZ dks ml le; ls vkt fnu rd vius IykV dk yksds”ku o

dCtk ugha fn;k gS] blh njfE;ku izkFkhZ }kjk dbZ ckj vkjksih ls viuk

dCtk ysuk pkgk exj vkjksih VkyeVksy djrk jgk gSA bl izdkj

vkjksih Lo;a us izkFkhZ ds lkFk lksps les ‘kM~;a ls /kks[kk nsdj iSls

gM+i fy;s gS] vc crk jgk gSA fd vki dh tehu gfjr iV~Vh esa pyh

xbZ] vxj vkjksih }kjk izkFkhZx.k ds lkFk /kks[kk nsus dh fu;r ugha gS]

rks viuh iM+h tehu esa ls izkFkhZ dks IykV ns ldrk gSA

 vizkFkhZ }kjk fcUnq la[;k 02 esa mi fcUnq la[;k 10 esa fy[kk gS fd ekuuh;

U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkjk/khu ;kfpdk esa le;le; ij izLrqr fjiksVZ ds

vk/kkj ij ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ “kf”kdkUr O;kl ds fgLls esa vkbZ

Hkwfe dk lhekadu fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA
(13 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr dFku ds lEcU/k esa fuosnu gS fd fnukad 26-08-17

dks mifLFkr Hkw- vfHkys[k ckxk] iVokjh iVokj e.My pkS[kk o tsMh,s

iVokjh dks ekSdk QnZ rS;kj dj is”k djus ds funsZ”k nsus ij Vhe Hkw-

vfHkys[k ckxk] iVokjh pkS[kk] iVokjh ts-Mh-,s- us la;qDr :i ls ekSdk

QnZ rS;kj dj is”k dh fd fookfnr Hkw- l- 8]9]10 ds Øsrk Jherh jk/kk

VaMu] Jh pkSFkey vjksM+k] JhukFk vjksM+k] foØsrk Jh “kf”kdkUr ,oa

ekSrfcjku ds :c: ns[kk x;k] ekSds ij mDr [kljk uEcj 57 tks/kiqj

tSlyesj ckbZikl ij fLFkr gSA ftlesa dqN fgLls ij cktjk eaqx xokj

dh Qly cksbZ gqbZ gS] ,oa dqN fgLls ij nqdku] pkj nhokjh

iV~Vh;k ,oa /keZdkaVk vkfn cus gq,s gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp

U;k;ky; tks/kiqj }kjk xzke pkSikluh tkxhj ds [kljk ua- 57 esa

fookfnr Hkw[k.M la[;k 8]9]10 dk lhekadu pkgk x;k Fkk ijUrq jktLo

jsdMZ tekcUnh esa mDr [kljk uEcj 57 jdck 13 ch?kk 30 O;fDr;ksa ds

uke “kkeykrh ntZ gSA miyC/k uD”kk yV~Vk esa rjehe ugha gS] vr%

mDr fooknhr Hkw[k.M la[;k 08]09]10 dk jktLo Lrj ij lhekadu

fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA tks layXu gSA bl izdkj vkjksih }kjk fdl

vk/kkj ij [kljk uEcj 57 ds dkSu ls IykV ds udys is”k dh gSA

Li”V ugha gSA

vuql/a kku lR;kiu voyksdu ikoyh] ikoyh ij miyC/k

nLrkost] c;ku izkFkhZ JhukFk vjksM+k] c;kukr xokgku rFkk

fujh{k.k ekSdk] fnukad 26-08-17 dks [kljk uEcj 57 pkSikluh

tkxhj esa Hkw- vfHkys[k ckxk] iVokjh pkS[kk] iVokjh ts-Mh-,s-}kjk]

la;qDr :i ls eqfrZc ekSdk QnZ voyksdu ds vk/kkj ij ik;k

x;k fd vkjksih “kf”kdkar O;kl o mlds lg[kkrsnkjksa us vkt

rd vius fgLls esa vkbZ tehu dk uD”kk Iyku ugha cuk;k
(14 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

o uk gh ekSdk ij Hkw[k.M dkVs gq,s gSA vkjksih Jh “kf”kdkUr us

dkYifud uD”kk ds vk/kkj ij IykV uEcj 08 Jherh jk/kk VaMu

IykWV la- 09 JhukFk vjksMk+ ,oa IykWV la- 10 Jh pkSFkey vjksM+k

dks o”kZ 1995 esa cspku dj muls jde olwy dj yhA jftLVªh

ds vuqlkj ekSdk ij IykWV la- 08]09]10 ugha gksus ds ckotwn

cspku ukek fu’ikfnr dj /kks[kk/kM+h dh o :i;s gM+i fy;sA

vuql/a kku lR;kiu ls vkjksih “kf”kdkar ds fo:) 420] 406

Hkknla- izekf.kr ik;k x;k gSA iwoZ esa fd;s x;s vuql/a kku ls

lger gwWA

vr% fjiksVZ lknj izsf’kr gSA**

The conclusion and the findings of the Investigating Officer

reproduced hereinabove clearly indicate that the petitioner had

sold the three plots in question to the complainants by registered

sale deeds way-back in the year 1995. As per the recitals

appearing in the sale deeds, the respective purchasers agreed that

they had received possession of the plots in question. However,

there is no physical demarcation of the plots at the site. The

petitioner has clearly intimated to the Investigating Officer that

the lands are lying open and the complainants can very well take

recourse of the lawful procedure to take possession of their

respective plots. The matters were thereafter heard finally on

26.10.2017.

Shri Mahesh Bora learned senior counsel assisted by Shri

A.K.Singh learned counsel representing the petitioner in all the

three matters vehemently urged that the F.I.Rs. in question are
(15 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

absolutely frivolous and are based on conjectures and surmises.

The registered sale deeds in question were executed way-back in

the year 1995. Clear recitals are made in the sale deeds that the

purchasers had taken possession of their respective plots right at

the time of the sale. The petitioner moved an application for

surrendering and getting a patta of his remaining share of 728

sq.yards from the JDA way-back in the year 2008. The total land

which came into the share of the petitioner under the sale deed

executed in the year 1992 was of 1328 sq.yards. Admittedly, the

petitioner applied for getting a patta of 728 sq.yards of land only.

Even till date, the said chunk of 728 sq.yards is entered in the

name of JDA after having been surrendered by the petitioner. The

remaining 600 sq.yards is consisted by the complainant’s plots.

The Patwaris concerned have made repeated efforts to demarcate

and identify the complainants’ plots. However, manifestly, it is

clear that the disputed plots purchased by the complainants have

fallen within the green corridor and thus, pattas thereof cannot be

issued and construction thereupon is also not permissible because

of this subsequent development. Faced with this situation, the

complainants started compelling the petitioner to give them

alternative plots from his remaining share. He submitted that

despite all these developments, the petitioner’s motives are

absolutely bonafide and he is ready to return the consideration

amount to the complainants, who have bluntly refused to accept

the same. Reliance was placed by Shri Bora on the decision

rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.

(16 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

Ibrahim Ors. Vs. State of Bihar Anr. reported in

(2009)8 SCC 751 and this Court’s judgment rendered in the case

of Ganesh Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr. reported in

2012(4) WLC (Raj.) 710. He urged that as admittedly, the land

from which the petitioner sold the plots to the complainants was of

clear title, manifestly, the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the

offences of cheating and/or criminal breach of trust by any stretch

of imagination. He urged that the consequence of the subsequent

development viz. non-issuance of pattas of the disputed plots by

the JDA to the complainants cannot be thrust down the

petitioner’s throat because this situation has arisen owing to the

declaration of 75 meters of land on either side of the road as a

green corridor and the JDA is not issuing pattas to the

complainants on this ground. He contended that the petitioner

cannot be penalized or prosecuted for this event. He further urged

that the remedy if any, available to the complainants would be to

file a suit for partition and demarcation and the registration of the

impugned F.I.Rs. for the offences of cheating and criminal breach

of trust is ex-facie illegal because none of these offences are made

out from the admitted allegations of the complainants. He thus

implored the Court to exercise its inherent powers and quash the

F.I.Rs. under challenge as they amount to a gross abuse of

process of law.

Per contra, Shri Moti Singh learned counsel representing the

complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the

Investigating Officer vehemently opposed the submissions
(17 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. They urged that the

petitioner fraudulently induced the complainants into purchasing

the non-existent pieces of lands. The plots were numbered

fictionally because demarcation existed when the sale deeds were

executed. The complainants were made to believe that the

petitioner would protect their right in the land in question

whenever formal demarcation was carried out. However, he failed

to honour to his promise and filed the application for conversion of

the entire share of land devolving upon him under the registered

sale deed dated 8.12.1992. Thereby, the petitioner has not only

cheated the complainants but thereafter, he has attempted to

usurp the three plots sold to the complainants. Shri Moti Singh

relied upon the following judgments

1. State of Haryana Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal Ors.

(1992)1 SCC (Cri) 426

2. M/s.Medchl Chemicals Pharma Pvt.Ltd. Vs. M/s.Biological

E.Ltd. Ors.

(2000) SCC (Cri) 615

3. T.Vengama Naidu Vs. T.Dora Swamy Naidu Ors.

2007(2) WLC (SC) Criminal 101

4. Padal Venkata Ram Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri

Satyanarayana Reddy Ors.

(2012)1 SCC (Cri) 603

5. Veer Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal Anr.

(2007)7 SCC 373
(18 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

6. Satish Mehra Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi Anr.

(2013) AIR (SC) 506

7. Yash Sharma Ors. Vs. Mohan Dev Sharma Anr.

2013(3) WLC (Raj.) 641

8. Rama Prakash Bhargav Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr.

2013(4) WLC (Raj.) 451

9. Umesh Zadgaonkar Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan Anr.

2013(3) WLC (Raj.) 666

10. Mahesh Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan

2008(1) WLC 188

and urged that mere availability of civil remedy with the

complainants cannot be construed as a valid ground to quash the

prosecution at the inception when the allegations set out in the

F.I.Rs. do disclose the requisite and necessary ingredients of the

offences alleged. He thus implored the Court to reject these misc.

petitions.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available

on record.

Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by

Hon’ble Supreme Court including that of Mohd.Ibrahim (supra)

relied upon by Shri Bora that for constituting an offence under

Section 420 I.P.C., the prosecution has to set out clear and

unimpeachable case that intention of the accused was to cheat

right at the inception of the contract. So-called development of
(19 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

fraudulent intention at a subsequent stage would not bring the act

complained of within the purview of cheating. Apparently, looking

to the admitted allegations in all the three FIRs, it is clear that the

accused sold three plots measuring 200 yards each to the

complainants’ herein from his share of 1332 yards in the Khasra

No.57 of the revenue village Chopasani. Admittedly, the accused

acquired a valid title for this chunk of land through a registered

sale deed in the year 1992. The sale deeds in favour of the

complainants were executed in the year 1995. It is pertinently

mentioned in each sale deed that the purchaser had been given

his/her respective plot. The complainants have categorically stated

in the F.I.R. that they used to go and check their plots from time

to time. The accused petitioner initiated proceedings for getting a

patta for his remaining share of land by taking recourse of the

procedure provided under Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act. It

is an admitted position from the record and duly verified from the

Investigating Officer’s factual report (the contents whereof have

been reproduced hereinabove), that only 728 sq.yards land was

surrendered by the accused petitioner in the JDA for getting a

patta thereof in his name. The total chunk of land was 1332.

sq.yards and thus admittedly, the complainants’ plots which ad-

measured at 200×3600 sq.yards were not disturbed by the

petitioner. Manifestly thus, the allegations set out by the

complainants in their F.I.Rs. that the accused fraudulently

deprived them of their plots by filing application for surrendering

the entire plot admeasuring 1332 yards and getting patta thereof
(20 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

from the JDA is only fictional and conjectural. As a matter of fact,

the entire controversy is plain and simple a dispute of demarcation

and identification of the particular share of the land in reference to

the disputed sale deeds and nothing beyond that. From the

admitted and highest allegations as set out in the FIR, there is no

such material which can satisfy the Court that the intention of the

accused was to cheat the complainants at the inception. For the

first time, this allegation was levelled by the complainants after

almost 19 years. The entire dispute seems to have arisen when

the accused and the complainants initiated proceedings for getting

pattas of their respective plots. The complainants have clearly

alleged that they also approached the JDA for getting pattas of

their respective plots but the precise reason for their failure to get

the pattas has not been clarified either by them in the F.I.Rs. nor

in their statements recorded during investigation. Even the

Investigating Officer has failed to pinpoint that the accused was in

any manner responsible for the failure of the complainants’

endeavour to get pattas of their plots. Manifestly thus, the offence

under Section 420 I.P.C. is not made out against the accused

petitioner from the highest and admitted allegations levelled by

the complainants. Furthermore, the offence under Section 406

I.P.C. can also not be applied in view of the admitted prosecution

allegations because no elements of entrustment and criminal

breach of trust are made out against the accused therefrom. The

entrustment if any made by the complainants to the accused was

of the consideration amount for purchasing the plots in question
(21 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

way-back in the year 1995. Admittedly, the accused executed

registered sale deeds in favour of the complainants after receiving

the consideration amount and handed them the possession of the

property (as per the recital in the sale documents) and thus,

neither did the accused cheat the complainants nor did he commit

criminal misappropriation so as to warrant his prosecution in

connection with the impugned F.I.Rs. The judgments cited by Shri

Moti Singh learned counsel representing the complainants

expound uncontroverted principles of law viz; (1) that the F.I.R.

can only be quashed in the rarest of rare cases and in exceptional

circumstances and where the admitted allegations levelled therein

do not disclose any offence whatsoever, (2) that merely because

the complainants can take recourse of a civil remedy, the FIR

cannot be quashed; if it discloses the necessary ingredients of the

offences of cheating and breach of trust etc; (3) that the High

Court should not interfere in the rightful investigation of an F.I.R.

when the same discloses the ingredients of cognizance offences.

Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the

touchstone of these settled principles of law and as has been

discussed above, ex-facie, even if the allegations set out in the

impugned F.I.Rs. are accepted as true, then too, the same do not

disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged so as to

justify continuance of investigation thereof and hence, the

judgments cited by Sh.Moti Singh are of no help to the

complainants. It may be noted here at the cost of repetition that

the petitioner conveyed his bonafides by offering to return the
(22 of 22)
[ APPLR-1102/2016]

consideration amounts to the complainants in order to alleviate

them from the situation created by the subsequent developments

but the complainants did not accept the said proposal.

As an upshot of the above discussion, this Court is convinced

that the F.I.Rs. under challenge and all further investigation

deserve to be quashed by exercising its inherent powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Resultantly, all the three misc. petitions are allowed. The

impugned F.I.Rs. No.523/2014, 400/2014 and 524/2014

respectively registered at the P.S. Udaimandir, District Jodhpur for

the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. and all further

proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed.

However, it is made clear that the observations made

hereinabove shall not be treated as prejudicial to the rights of the

parties in any other collateral litigation.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.

/tarun goyal/