The court ruled that criminal proceedings cannot proceed for a civil dispute, especially when multiple FIRs arise from the same cause, indicating an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioners have sought for quashment of FIR No. 376/2018 registered with Ashok Nagar, Police Station District Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474 and 120B IPC.

2. Mr. Sudhir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer is on the ground that a pure civil dispute has been sought to be redressed by a criminal proceeding especially after expiry of the limitation period for civil proceeding. Moreover, the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioners. Even for arguments sake, the prosecution case is accepted as it is, in FIR No. 3/2023 registered with SOG/ATS police Station, Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC wherein forgery of different pattas said to be issued by JDA has been raised against the petitioners including the pattas referred in the impugned FIR and this Court has already refused to quash FIR No.3/2023 above in SB. Cr. Writ Petition No. 618/2023 decided on 27.07.2023, therefore, allowing multiple criminal proceedings for the same cause would be an abuse of the process of law.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. S.S. Hora contends that mere pendency of a civil proceeding between the parties even if pending before a higher court would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings if the criminal proceedings discloses commission of cognizable offence. Reliance has been placed on Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State Of West Bengal And Ors. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 555. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 next contends that in Ponnusamy Selvamani v. State & Ors., the Hon'ble Madras High Court stated that just because the claim under civil law got time barred, it could not at all be termed that the criminal action would not follow. Learned counsel next contends that it is admission of the petitioners that the patta, on the basis whereof petitioner No.1 pretended before respondent No.2 that she had title to sale the referred plot, was forged one, therefore, at the time of entering into agreement with respondent No.2, the petitioner No.1 was aware of the fact of forgery of the patta and as such acted with dishonest and fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement.

4. The factual matrix of the case as disclosed in the impugned FIR and available material on record is that respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with petitioner No.1 Guman Khandelwal on 18.7.2014 to purchase plot No. 24, area 733.33 sq. yards of land in Mitra Nagar, Jhotwara in the town of Jaipur on total consideration of Rs. 61,00,000/-. At the time of agreement Rs. 10,00,000/- were paid through cheque to petitioner No.1. The agreement speaks that possession of the land under deal was handed over to the purchaser respondent No.2 and purchaser accepted the possession. It was agreed between the parties that within a year, the remaining consideration money would be paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner would execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.2. It is further stipulated that if petitioner No.1 would refuse to execute the sale deed, respondent No.2 would have right to get executed the same through process of law.

5. Thereafter, respondent No.2 did not send any notice to the vendor of his readiness and willingness to perform his part even after expiry of more than on year as agreed. The petitioner No.1 has produced a registered patta said to be executed by Jaipur Development Authority in favour of petitioner No.1 on 24.4.2009 which got registered with the registering authority on 29.4.2009 as her title deed in respect of the property under transfer.

6. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were running a registered company in the name of Guman Groups. The petitioners had engaged services of Rajvindra Singh and Avinash Sharma, under a written memorandum of understanding dated 30.1.2007 whereunder two named persons were to bring customers for purchas