Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
Gopal Singh, S/o. Uttam Singh Verma - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor and Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5858 Of 2023 Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5840 Of 2023, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5859 Of 2023
Decided On : 03-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P. Singh Chouhan, Mr. Bhanvar Singh Chouhan.
For the Respondent: Mr. Laxman Meena, PP
For Complainant : Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Anuj, Jain Mr. Sanjay Sharma, ACP Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the parties was predominantly of a civil nature and could not be allowed to take on a criminal character. The court found the registration of the impugned FIR and continuation of investigation thereupon to be malicious and in abuse of process of law.

Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Dispute over Sublease Agreement - 420, 406 & 120-B IPC - 16.03.2023, 11.04.2023 - The court quashed the FIR No.361/2023 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, District Jaipur for offences u/s 420, 406 & 120-B IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings arising thereof, as the court found the registration of the impugned FIR and continuation of investigation thereupon to be malicious and in abuse of process of law. The court held that the dispute between parties was predominantly of a civil nature and could not be allowed to take on a criminal character.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a sublease agreement executed between G&G Road Island Developers LLP and the petitioners for an immovable property. The petitioners were accused of not paying the agreed revenue share and not complying with the terms and conditions of the extended sublease agreement. The complainant alleged fraudulent and dishonest intentions on the part of the petitioners and filed an FIR against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected did not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners. It concluded that the dispute was predominantly of a civil nature and could not be allowed to take on a criminal character. The court observed that the registration of the impugned FIR and continuation of investigation thereupon were malicious and in abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected disclosed the commission of any offence by the petitioners. The court also considered whether the dispute between the parties was predominantly of a civil nature and whether the registration of the impugned FIR and continuation of investigation thereupon were malicious and in abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected did not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners. It also concluded that the dispute between the parties was predominantly of a civil nature and could not be allowed to take on a criminal character. The court found the registration of the impugned FIR and continuation of investigation thereupon to be malicious and in abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR No.361/2023 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, District Jaipur for offences u/s 420, 406 & 120-B IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings arising thereof.

JUDGMENT :

1. These three separate criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.PC have been filed, for quashing of FIR No.361/2023 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, District Jaipur for offences u/s 420, 406 & 120-B IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings arising thereof, wherein petitioners have been named as accused persons, allegedly to be involved in commission of such offences.

2. Since all three petitions arising out of one and the same FIR in question, with consent of counsel for both parties, all three petitions have been heard together and would stand decide by this common judgment.

3. Relevant facts required to be considered to deal with the present petitions as emerge from the record and contentions made by counsel for both parties, in brief, are as under:-

(I) The dispute between parties is in respect of an immovable property situated at KM-125, Delhi Jaipur Expressway (National Highway-4), Village Pinan, District Alwar (Rajasthan), regarding which a sublease agreement dated 16.03.2023 was executed between G&G Road Island Developers LLP through its designated partner Mr. Siddharth Gupta (respondent No.2 herein) and petitioners. The possession of property was allegedly delivered to petitioners under this sublease agreement, for the purpose of running a Vegetarian Restaurant in the name & style of Rajwada in hall, initially only for a period of one month from 16.03.2023 to 15.04.2023.

(II) Later on, vide letter dated 11.04.2023, period of sublease agreement was extended for next 21/2 months i.e. till 30.06.2023 by the lessor with condition that sublease rent for restaurant will be 30% (excluding GST) of total revenue/sales proceeds from sale of food items at the restaurant and sublease rent will be paid on or before first week of next month; in case of delay in payment of revenue share, the payment shall be made with interest @ 18% per annum. It has been pointed out that the premises including the disputed property, indeed belongs to National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and was leased out by the NHAI to the PATH Company, then in turn, complainant-respondent No.2 took some premises on lease from the PATH Company and then within permissible terms of the lease conditions, complainant-respondent No.2 handed over the portion of disputed property to petitioners, on sublease, for a short period, stated to be only on trial basis.

(III) According to complainant-respondent No.2, he is required to pay revenue, on regular basis, to the NHAI as well as to the PATH Company, from the amount of revenue, payable by petitioners under the sublease agreement as extended, but petitioners have stopped to pay the revenue, which was agreed to be 30% (excluding GST) of the total sale proceeds of restaurant, while extending the period of sublease and thus, indeed petitioners are enjoying the possession of the disputed property, without making payment of the agreed revenue amount. It has been submitted that in such eventualities, the complainant has to serve one notice dated 01.07.2023 upon the petitioners, through which they were informed that the performance of petitioners has been found to be unsatisfactory as well as they have not complied with terms and conditions of the extended sublease agreement, therefore, petitioners were asked to vacate the sublease premises so also to pay the outstanding arrears of revenue, to the tune of Rs.26,79,750/-, allegedly fallen due against them upto the period of 30.06.2023.

(IV) According to the complainant, such notice dated 01.07.2023 was duly served upon the petitioners, however, same was never replied/responded. On bidding to pay the arrears of due revenue share and to hand over the vacant possession of the sublease premises, petitioners started to misbehave with the complainant and not only abused, but threatened to kill and openly challenged the complainant to do anything. Under such compelling circumstances, the complainant was forced to lodge the impugned FIR on 16.08.2