Hon'ble AGARWAL, J.—The accused petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside FIR No.267/2013 registered at Police Station Jalupura, Jaipur (North) for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC at the instance of respondent Shri Kushal Chand Dugar. The petition has mainly been filed on the ground that the aforesaid police station or any other police station in the State of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to investigate the case because the aforesaid offences or any of them has not been committed within the territorial limits of the aforesaid police station or even in the State of Rajasthan. It has been made clear on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings is not challenging the FIR on merit i.e. on the ground that no offence is disclosed against it even prima facie from the allegations made in the same.

2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition may be stated as below:-

1. A piece and parcel of land measuring 19200 Sq.Ft. is situated at Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) and a three storied building commonly known as “Dugar Building” is situated upon this land and the respondent is owner of half portion of the plot and the building situated upon it.

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act having its registered office at 10, Sukhlal Johri Lane, Kolkata and Corporate Office at 88, Chandani Chowk Street, Police Station Bow Bazar, Kolkata.

3. As per contention of the petitioner, respondent agreed to sell his portion of the aforesaid property to the petitioner in lieu of sale consideration of Rs.1,11,00,000/- and after receiving an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- as part payment of sale consideration, he executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner on 28.11.2009 incorporating therein the terms and conditions of the sale and one of the conditions is that if any dispute arises between the parties regarding said sale, the same shall be referred to a sole arbitrator named in it. It is to be noted that respondent in disputing transaction of such sale and the execution of the aforesaid agreement claiming it to be a forged and fabricated document.

4. The petitioner company filed arbitration proceedings on or before 5.10.2010 under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondent before the Calcutta High Court as Arbitration Case No. 646/2010 in which it was specifically alleged that the aforesaid agreement to sell was executed between the parties at the registered office of the petitioner.

5. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court vide order dated 5.10.2010 and 25.1.2011 passed in the aforesaid arbitration proceedings appointed one Shri Nilender Bhattacharyajee as receiver directing him to prepare an inventory report about the property in dispute and in compliance of the said orders, receiver came to Jaipur on 7.2.2011 but he could not prepare inventory due to strong objection on the part of the respondent. The respondent contended before the receiver that no such agreement was ever executed by him in favour of the petitioner and it is a forged and fabricated document. In this regard, a letter dated 7.2.2011 was also given by the respondent to the receiver. The respondent claims that a copy of the agreement was provided to him by the receiver and upon this fact of existence of agreement to sell dated 28.11.2009 came into his knowledge for the first time.

6. A written complaint was filed by the respondent on 12.2.2011 before Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (North) which was sent to SHO, Police Station, Jalupura Jaipur for necessary action. Although formal FIR was not registered upon this complaint but preliminary enquiry was undertaken and it was found that no offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Jalupura and i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document