Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Nawal Kishore Dangayach – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from both parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of the fir and legal standards for quashing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No.375/2023 registered with Police Station Chomu, Jaipur (West) for offences under Sections 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at the instance of respondent No. 2.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that M/s A. Gangwal Real Estate LLP was a partnership firm and was developing "Iconic Residency" at plot No. A5 Airport Enclave, Tonk Road, Jaipur. The informant contacted the petitioner and others named in the FIR for purchase of flat No.103 super built up area of 3473. 73 sq. feet on total consideration money of Rs. 2,57,05,602. The complainant paid Rs. 50 lakhs in different instalments in token whereof receipts were granted which are attached with the reply of the respondent. This took place in the year 2016. When no progress of construction was visible for 5 years, respondent No. 2 asked for refund of his consideration money. The petitioner issued a cheque
The court affirmed that prima facie evidence of a conspiracy and forgery necessitates proceeding with trial, emphasizing the narrow scope of quashing FIRs under Section 482.
The court quashed the FIR due to lack of necessary legal standing and the excessive delay in filing, indicating abuse of the judicial process.
The court maintained that an FIR must not be quashed at an initial stage unless no prima facie case is established, even if the allegations suggest civil nature.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the FIR cannot be quashed solely based on the absence of detailed allegations against the petitioner, and the petitioner's involvement needed ....
The court emphasized the limited circumstances in which an FIR/complaint can be quashed, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Existence of fraudulent intention is essential to substantiate cheating; mere non-fulfillment of a civil agreement does not constitute a criminal offense.
Point of law: Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations....
The court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for disputes of civil character arising from business transactions, especially when settled amicably.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
