Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the accused petitioner Dev Narayan Fagna under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the first information report No. 70/2008 lodged at Police Station Pratap Nagar for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

3. In brief the facts of the case are that complainant had some transactions with the petitioner regarding sale of a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 106 measuring 1.23 Hectares situated at village Tilawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. It has been alleged in the FIR that on 5.9.2006 the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and offered to sale the above mentioned property. He further stated that he was in need of a land and therefore agreed to purchase the said land after duly inspecting the site where the said land was situated. On the very same day i.e. on 5.9.206 sale of land was fixed for a sum of Rs. 70,00,000 for which token money of Rs. 11,000 was given to the petitioner. Moreover, it has been alleged that on 10.9.2006 a sum of Rs. 35,00,000 were paid in cash and Rs. 25,00,000 were payable through three cheques bearing Nos. 671092, 671093 and 671094 of Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively of Standard Chartered Bank issued in the name of Shri Bhanwar Lal. Lateron it was found that the account of complainant for which cheques were given was closed and the complainant on informing about this agreed to replace the same with another set of cheques. It is stated in the petition that on the instructions of Bhanwarlal the petitioner went to get the cheques replaced. It has been averred that on 19.9.2006 the complainant issued three more cheques which were in the name of Bhanwar Lal of in lieu of the previous cheques bearing Nos. 991107, 991108, 991109 of total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-. When the complainant asked the accused petitioner regarding registry of the aforesaid land, he repeatedly stated that the same would be done. In 2008 the complainant came to know that in the revenue record entries regarding land was not in favour of Dev Narayan petitioner and the petitioner was not the owner of the land. The petitioner obtained huge amount from the complainant and hence he lodged the first information report No. 70/2008 at Police Station Pratap Nagar. Thereafter the petitioner moved anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, which was rejected. After rejection of anticipatory bail, the petitioner moved this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the first information report.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that neither the petitioner was the owner of the said land nor made any agreement to sale, nor received any amount with respect to the sale of the said land. The cheques which have been mentioned by the complainant were payable to Bhawar Lal Gujjar and not to the petitioner. The learned counsel argued that a perusal of the cheques would make it clear that there had been transaction of money between Bhanwar Lal and Bheem Raj Meena and not between the complainant and the petitioner and thus the allegations against the petitioner has malafidely been knotted in the FIR in which he had no role whatsoever. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner obtained copy of the alleged receipt dated 19.9.2006 issued by him which is clearly a forgery in as much the writing other than receipt of replaced cheques has been interpolated. The learned counsel further stated that a bare look at the receipt would show that it is forgery committed by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that the dispute even if taken on its face value is of civil nature and no offence whatsoever is made out. The FIR is being abused by the complainant to harass the petitioner who is an innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the allegations as mentioned in the FIR. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document