The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 CrPC have been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of the FIR No.291/2019 of Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand.

2. It is informed that during pendency of the this criminal misc. petition, petitioner No.l namely Pukhraj Dhoka has died.

3. The impugned FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 alleging therein that the complainant has purchased a residential plot in Suncity Residential Scheme at Village Gudali, Tehsil Kankroli, District Rajsamand on 27.05.2010, measuring about 1395.62 sqr. ft. It is further alleged that the accused Nos.2 to 7, mentioned in the FIR, are the partners and they have launched the said Suncity Residential Scheme. It is also alleged the complainant has purchased the plot in question in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and sale-deed was executed in his favour by deceased petitioner No.l-Pukhraj Dhoka. It is alleged that the petitioner has further sold the plot in question to one Smt. Dilkhush Kanwar wife of Ratan Singh Ji on 23.11.11, however, when the said subsequent purchaser has raised a boundary wall over the said plot, the same was destroyed by the Ayurvedic Department claiming that the plot in question, which was sold to the complainant is of the Ayurvedic Department land.

4. The complainant has further alleged that the persons named in the FIR have committed the offence of cheating by preparing forged patta of the said plot, which was owned by the Government Department. It is, therefore, alleged that the accused-persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and the investigation in to the impugned FIR is going on.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as a matter of fact, the Directors of the Suncity Residential Scheme has applied for issuance of Patta under Section 90-B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the concerned Municipal Board, after verifying that the said land falls within the said residential scheme, has issued a patta in its favour. It is further submitted that the plot in question was sold to the complainant way back in the year, 2010 and at the time of execution of the sale-deed, the possession of the plot in question was also handed over to the complainant but the impugned FIR is lodged in year 2019 that is also as wrong facts.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, prayed that impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these misc. petitions and submitted that from a bare reading of the contents of the impugned FIR, case for commission of offence is made out, therefore, the same cannot be quashed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR.

9. The complainant, in his complaint, has specifically alleged that the plot in question was sold by the Directors and other office bearers of the Suncity Residential Scheme and he has paid consideration for purchase of the plot in question, however, in fact the said plot is situated on the land belonging to the Ayurvedic Department and the accused persons while preparing the forged patta of the said plot has sold it to the complainant despite the fact that the same does not belong to them.

10. This Court of the opinion that from a bare reading of the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant, case for commission of offence is made out. It is matter of investigation as to what is the role of the petitioner No.2 in the matter and at this stage, it cannot be said that a bare reading of the impugned FIR, no case for commission of offence is made out.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of t