Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Sitaram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1264 of 2019
Decided On : 28-02-2019
Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP, for the Respondents
Validity of disputed agreement cannot be determined in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Disputed Agreement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging that no agreement was executed between the petitioner and the complainant, while the complainant asserted the execution of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as the validity of the agreement was a disputed question of fact and cannot be determined in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition. However, it ordered both FIRs to be investigated by one officer to determine the truthful version.
Issues: Validity of the agreement, Quashing of FIR, Investigation
Ratio Decidendi: Validity of disputed agreement cannot be determined in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition. Both FIRs to be investigated by one officer to determine the truthful version.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and both FIRs were ordered to be investigated by one officer to determine the truthful version.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 83/2019 registered at Police Station Kanota, Jaipur (East) for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 379 and 120B IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant in the FIR has alleged that an agreement to sell was executed on 2.1.2007 between the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner as a seller received Rs. Fourteen Lakhs as earnest money, whereas, total sale consideration was Rs. One Crore. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complainant has alleged that it was stated in the alleged agreement that the petitioner shall execute the sale-deed after two pending civil suits are decided in favour of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the both the suits have been decided in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that false FIR has been lodged by the complainant alleging therein that an agreement was executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no agreement was executed between the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner had already lodged FIR Annexure-2 alleging that the complainant has forged and fabricated the agreement.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Whether the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the complainant is a disputed question of fact. The complainant in the impugned FIR assert execution of the agreement whereas, petitioner in the FIR Annexure-2 has stated that agreement is a forged and fabricated document.
7. Validity of the agreement cannot be determined in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, no ground is made to entertain the present petition and the same is dismissed.
8. However, considering that the impugned FIR was lodged after one year of lodging of FIR by the petitioner, it is ordered that both the FIR bearing Nos. 0083/2019 and 253/2018 both registered at Police Station Kanota, Jaipur City (East) shall be investigated by one investigating officer.
9. The said investigating officer shall find as to which FIR contains the truthful version. It is further ordered that in case the investigating officer comes to conclusion that offences are made out against the petitioner, he shall serve a fifteen days prior notice upon the petitioner to enable him to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for grant of pre-arrest bail.
