The judgment establishes the principle that the existence of a prima facie case based on the evidence presented is crucial in determining the validity of a charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Petition has been preferred under Section 482 praying for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and impugned Charge-sheet No. 88 dated 29.06.2017 (arising out of F.I.R. No. 229/2016) Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur as well as entire proceedings as initiated thereunder against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the charge-sheet, bearing no. 87(88), dated 29.06.2017 (arising out the F.I.R. No. 229/2016, registered at Police Station, Gogunda, District Udaipur), whereby the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. and the criminal proceedings accordingly, have been initiated against him.

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that it is the version of the prosecution that complainant, Jinesh Nandawat S/o Shri Prakash Chandra Nandawat submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur alleging therein that the Najool property of the accused measuring 10037.50 sq. ft. situated in Village Sayra, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur, which he obtained through auction, for which a sale deed was also executed in his favour. And that, a conditional agreement for the same was executed between him and the accused-petitioner on 19.01.2016. And that, as per the said agreement, it was agreed between them that the complainant would pay a sum of Rs. 1 crore to the accused, and that thereafter, both of them would sell the said plot and divide the profits in the ratio of 60:40, to the accused and the complainant, respectively. And that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs to the accused on 16.01.2016, and the remaining sum of Rs. 55 lakhs was agreed to paid by him to the accused petitioner at a later date. And that, on 28.09.2016, as alleged, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the accused-petitioner has sold the said land to 6 different persons on 21.04.2016 and the sale deed thereof had been executed in 1/6th share and each was sold off for Rs. 8,20,000/-. And that, upon receipt of such complaint, the concerned police authority forwarded the same to the S.H.O. Gogunga, for investigation, who in turn, registered a case bearing F.I.R. No. 229/2016 for the offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 478, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. against the petitioner, and upon completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. before the learned court below.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from a bare perusal of the material available on the record, no case under the aforementioned provisions of the IPC is made out, and that, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the charge for the said offences against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant had named 9 accused persons in the F.I.R. initially, and that if he is so capable of falsely implicating 8 persons, then there is every possibility that the petitioner too has been falsely implicated in this case, owing to an ulterior motive of the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on a perusal of the material available on record, no agreement for the sale of plot of land as averred by the complainant was entered into, and that the so-called agreement, even if at all exists, was not sent for F.S.L. or signature verification. And that, looking to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 : 1990 (2) SCALE 1066, the present charge-sheet against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that any dispute between the parties herein, being the accused-petitioner and the complainant, is of a civil nature relating to a pr