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- [email protected] jdck 3-7 ch?kk xSj eqedhu lM+d] [kljk
ua- [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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/