Inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with the accused exercising their sole rights over the property for a long time, can amount to abuse of process of Court and lead to the quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioners-Smt.Manju Chordiya, Balveer Kumar Chordiya and Aditya Chordiya have preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.157/2015 seeking quashing of FIR No.95/2015 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (South).

2. Petitioner-Braj Gopal Sharma has preferred Criminal MISC. Petition No.7150/2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of the same FIR bearing No.95/2015.

3. As the prayer in the Writ Petition and Criminal MISC. Petition is same, both the petitions i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No.157/2015 and Cr.MISC.Petition No.7150/2018 are being decided by this common order.

4. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that complaint was lodged by Lakhveer Singh alleging therein that the complainant was into jewellery business. He purchased Plot Nos.A-80, A-81, A- 82AB, 90, 91 and 92 and got possession of the same. After purchasing the plots, a common boundry wall was constructed and constructions were raised on the plots and complainant started residing therein. It is also mentioned in the complaint that Smt. Manju Chordiya was like a sister of the complainant. In the year 1998 a theft took place in the premises of the complainant as a result of which complainant became indebted to many persons. Complainant took loan from petitioner-Balveer Kumar Chordiya. Manju Chordiya took original property papers and signatures on blank stamp papers for letting out the property of the complainant. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the family members of the complainant resided in the premises till December 1998, thereafter the premises was let out to Ranbaxy Ltd. Complainant was under the impression that the blank papers on which signatures were obtained were used for executing the rent deed. In 2013 Ranbaxy Ltd. vacated the premises. In 2014 petitioners told the complainant that the complainant was not having any right over the property. On enquiry from Jaipur Development Authority, it was revealed that petitioners had got the property transferred in their name. When petitioners started raising construction, complainant's son filed civil suit in December 2014 with regard to Plot No.91 and his son Ranjeet Singh filed civil suit in relation to Plot No.81. It is mentioned in the complaint that a forged agreement to sale has been prepared by the petitioners. Complaint was sent to the Police Station under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., 1973 and FIR No.95/2015 was registered by the police.

5. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the plots were purchased by the petitioners and after the purchase of plots, pattas were got issued from Jaipur Development Authority. Petitioners after purchase of property had let out the property to Ranbaxy Ltd. which continued as tenant for a period of about 15 years and petitioners were receiving rent from Ranbaxy Ltd. After the premises was vacated by Ranbaxy Ltd. Petitioners sought permission for consideration of plots and for raising residential apartment. Requisite fees to the tune of Rs. 80,00,000/- was deposited and permission for constructing residential apartment was given by Jaipur Development Authority. Petitioners started constructing flats on the said plots and present complaint was lodged to obstruct the petitioners from raising construction.

6. It is also contended that when sons of the complainant could not get any interim order in their favour from the Civil Courts, complainant filed this frivolous complaint.

7. It is also contended that there is inordinate delay of 17 years in lodging of the complaint. There is no justification for permitting the police to investigate in the FIR when there is no dispute and dispute, if any, is of civil nature. It is also contended that Bankers cheques were given for purchasing the plots. The Jaipur Development Authority has issued registered Patta in favour of petitioners in the year 2001. Petitioners have deposited around Rs. 80 lacs with the Jaipur Development Authority for permission to raise residentia