SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1099

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
Suresh Dangi, S/o. Shri Kuka Ram Dangi and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 950 Of 2021 With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 951 Of 2021
Decided On : 20-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Raj Singh Bhati, Mr. Manish Kumar Bhargav on behalf of Mr. D.S. Udawat.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saleem Mehar; Mr. Kalu Lal, (present in person); Mr. Laxman Singh Jodha.

Headnote:

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Section 420 IPC - 156(3) Cr.P.C. - 2023 : Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. - K. Jagdish vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. & Anr. : 2021 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1246 - Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. : (2013) 11 SCC 673 - State of Haryana vs Chaudhri Bhajanlal and Ors. : A.I.R. 1992 SC 604

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged that the accused-petitioners induced him to sign a sale deed for his agricultural land, promising to convert the land and share the proceeds. However, the accused-petitioners did not fulfill their promises, leading to the filing of an FIR under Section 420 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant willingly executed the sale deed and received consideration. The delay in filing the FIR and the lack of action to enforce the promise indicated ulterior motives. The accused-petitioners did not commit any offence, and the criminal proceedings were initiated to settle a financial dispute.

Issues: The issues revolved around the inducement to sign the sale deed, non-fulfillment of promises, and the abuse of criminal process to settle a civil dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from various judgments to determine that the accused-petitioners did not commit any offence and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. It emphasized the need for caution in exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the importance of distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offences.

Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were allowed, and the registration of the FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners were quashed and set aside.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have filed the present criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.295/2020 registered at Police Savina, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the cases are that one Nand Lal has filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur against the petitioners Suresh Dangi, Devi Lal, Gopal S/o Lalu Ram, Dalchand, Gopal S/o Shanker Gameti and Heera Lal stating, inter alia, that the complainant is having khatedari agricultural land situated at revenue village Eklingpura, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur. It was alleged that in the month of August, 2014 accused petitioners came to the complainant and said that the present market value of his khatedari agricultural land is very low and asked the complainant to convert the land use so that the value of your khatedari agricultural land will be increased. It was alleged that accused petitioners assured the complainant that they will bear all the expenses for conversion of land use but for the said purpose complainant was asked to come to Udaipur to sign some papers in the government department. It was also assured that at the beginning accused-petitioners will pay some part amount to the complainant. It was also assured that after conversion of the land use, we will decide the value of the land and pay you accordingly. It was assured that after demarcation and selling the plots, 50% amount will be paid to complainant. The complainant under the assurance and belief of accused-petitioners gave consent for converting the land use into residential purpose. Upon consent, the accused petitioners paid a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/-to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to transfer the said land in the name of the accused-petitioners, as they were facing great hardship in converting the land use into residential. As the complainant was under belief of accused-petitioners, gave consent for initiating such proceedings.

3. It was alleged that on 30.09.2014 the accused-petitioners came to complainant’s house and said that they will have to go to Udaipur for initiating the proceedings. Thereafter, complainant alongwith accused-petitioners came to Udaipur, where accused-petitioners already got the stamp papers typed and took the signatures of complainant on the stamp papers. It was alleged that the complainant was asked to submit the aforesaid papers to the Officer by saying that complainant has received Rs.22,01,000/-in cash and some cheques of Gopal’s account and assured that the amount will be paid in complainant’s account.

4. It was alleged that on 30.09.2014 after appearing in the Govt. Office and signing the papers, when complainant submitted two Cheques bearing Nos.552812 and 552813 in the bank for encashment, the same were dishonoured. Thereafter complainant went to the accused-petitioners and said that he has not received any amount from cheques, then accused-petitioners gave assurance that soon after conversion they will pay the amount. It was alleged that till July, 2016 complainant was paid a total sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

5. It was alleged that in the month of June, 2017 complainant came to know that the accused-petitioners on 30.09.2014 got the khatedari land of complainant transferred in their name and also came to know that the said land was purchased by accused-petitioners with the consideration amount of Rs. 77,01,000/-, out of which, Rs. 22,01,000/-has been paid in cash to the complainant and remaining amount of consideration will be paid through cheques.

6. It was alleged that when accused-petitioners have not made any further payment, complainant alongwith Shivraj Singh Shaktawat went to Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, where he came to know that the land use of some part of the said land has already been converted for residential purpose in the month of January, 2019. It was alleged that the accused-petitioners by making

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top