The central legal point established in the judgment is that the criminal prosecution must be based on sound and reasonable evidence, ruling out malice and ulterior motive.

JUDGMENT

1. In both these petitions, the petitioners have sought for quashing of FIR No. 166/2022 registered with Police Station Shahjahanpur, District Bhiwadi for the offence under Section 420 IPC on the ground that the FIR does not contain any allegation against the petitioners and they are victims of malicious prosecution for personal grudge. Both the cases involve identical facts and grounds of challenge, hence are decided by this common order.

2. According to FIR, Banwari Lal, father of the complainant died on 28.4.2022. After cremation of the dead body, the nephew of the complainant namely Manish S/o Mitthan Lal left the house and came only on the 12th day of the ritual. Thereafter he again left the house. Conduct of Manish raised some suspicion in the mind of the informant and the informant got information from SBI Bank that Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan standing in the name of Banwari Lal was cleared on 26.4.2022 through Manish and Manish got NOC from the Bank. Without knowledge of the legal heirs of Banwari Lal, 0.46 hectares of land was transferred sold to petitioner Ramesh Chand Yadav. The conspiracy was hatched by Manish and petitioner Rajesh for getting a sale deed executed by Banwari Lal on 26th April, 2022 itself in favour of Ramesh Chand Yadav. The FIR was lodged on 18.5.2022. Simultaneously, a civil Case No. 46/14/2022 was brought before learned Additional District Judge, Mundawar by all the sons and daughters of late Banwari Lal for cancellation of sale deed referred in the FIR. In the civil suit, the informant of this case as well as father of Manish are plaintiffs of the suit and petitioner Pawan and Rajesh are not party to the suit. The plaint does not show any statement against the petitioner Pawan rather it stated that Manish, Rakesh and Ramesh Chand Yadav defendant No.1 of the suit, were serving some stupefying substance to keep mental condition of Banwari Lal unable to understand the nature of the transaction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Pawan submits that said Banwari Lal had executed an agreement to sale the same property to the petitioner on total consideration of Rs. 18 lacs. Mr. Ramesh Chand was a witness on the said agreement to sale. However Ramesh Chand got the sale deed in his name on payment of total consideration of Rs. 7,31,600/- and the consideration money was paid in the Bank account of Banwari Lal. The complaint does not show that there was any forgery in the agreement to sale between the petitioner Pawan and late Banwari Lal nor there is any allegation that the petitioner Pawan was beneficiary to the transaction.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant respondent contends that the disputed sale deed was executed on 26.4.2022 and Banwari Lal died on 28.4.2022. The consideration money of the sale was transferred to the Bank Account of Banwari Lal on 30.4.2022 after the death of Banwari Lal, Banwari Lal was carrying a bank account in the State Bank of India, hence there was no reason to open a Bank Account in the Kotak Mahindra Bank on 26.4.2022, therefore, there was something fishy in the entire deal.

5. One thing is apparent that the informant of this case neither in the impugned FIR nor in the civil suit has made any averment against the petitioner Pawan's involvement. Therefore, evidently, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner Pawan is attended with malice and ulterior motive to wreak vengeance which is one of the ground for quashing of the FIR as held in State of Haryana & ors. v. Bhajan Lal & ors., reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335.

6. In the case of Rajeev Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing:

"(i) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against t