The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the allegations and the application of the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the chargesheet.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

"That present criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and present charge sheet bearing No.323/2020 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh arising out of FIR No.333/2020 registered at Police Station, Kothwali, Chittorgarh for the under Section 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and any consequential proceeding against the present petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside."

3. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the complainant/respondent No.2 submitted a report before the Station House Officer, City Kotwali, Chittorgarh on 20.06.2020, stating therein that she was informed by the petitioner that a land measuring Rakba 0.42 hectare in Khasra No.1901 was available for being sold, which was under the ownership of one Nandlal, and the same was further purchased by one Smt. Ramkanya and Anil Kumar Soni through an agreement dated 12.10.2011.

4. The complainant/respondent No.2 had also alleged in the aforementioned complaint that she had purchased 20% share in the aforementioned land and a partnership agreement in regard thereto was executed on 19.06.2013 between the complainant, Smt. Ramkanya and Anil Kumar Soni, and Mukesh Kumar Mundra (the present petitioner) had operated all these transactions. The complainant also alleged that accused persons, namely, Mukesh Kumar Mundra, Smt. Ramkanya and Anil Kumar Soni however, sold the land to one Balaji Builders through one of its partners, Balmukund Maliwal, who was son of Smt. Ramkanya, and further transactions also took place thereafter.

5. The complainant claimed that without her consent and knowledge, her 20% share in the land in question was sold, for which she demanded the amount, which too was denied.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is purely a civil dispute, and thus, lodging of the FIR itself was unlawful. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, which calls for quashing of the charge-sheet in question.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the transaction in question is purely a civil transaction, which has been blown out of proportion to give it a colour of a criminal act. Learned counsel thus, submitted that on the face of it, no criminal offence is made out against the present petitioner, and therefore, in light of the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) Supp1 SCC 335, the criminal proceedings, including the charge-sheet in question, need to be quashed.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the misc. petition.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that a prima facie case against the present petitioner is made out, as the allegation itself indicates that the complainant, who was having 20% share in the land in question, has been duped by the present petitioner.

10. In view of the above, no case for quashing of the chargesheet in question is made out at this stage. However, in case the petitioner is found innocent, then certainly, he will be entitled to the benefit of the same before the learned trial court, strictly in accordance with law, but any interference by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C., at the level of chargesheet, is not warranted, in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.