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 No. 000013 of the HDFC Bank Vaishali Nagar Branch, Jaipur dated 10.04.2023 of Rs.50 lakhs, which got dishonoured and the bank reported on 21.07.2023 about dishonour of the cheque for the reason that the referred bank account bearing 50200010761840 was already blocked. The complainant gathered that he has been cheated by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Hora, submits that the petitioner was inducted in the firm as partner by written agreement dated 01.01.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from the firm on 25.10.2016. Learned counsel contends that it is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had never entered into any agreement with anyone to sale the flats nor had issued any receipts nor on the date of issuance of cheques of Rs. 50 lakhs in favour of respondent No. 2, the petitioner was a partner in the firm. Some signed cheques of the period when the petitioner was partner of the firm was misused and different so-called beneficiaries have lodged separate FIRs against the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about the fraud upon the petitioner, he also lodged FIR No. 443 dated 27.06.2023 with Jawahar Circle Police Station for offences under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against respondent No.2 and other named persons, who have lodged separate FIRs against the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the documents produced and relied upon by the respondent No. 2 are forged and fabricated documents. Learned counsel contends that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by certain grounds of quashing of a FIR stated in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal , reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. According to learned counsel the allegation made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Moreover, the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with mala-filed to wreck vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Mr. Sudhir Jain, contends that it is not disputed by the petitioner, rather document produced by the petitioner discloses that the petitioner and others were inducted as partner of the said firm on 01.01.2015. The respondent No. 2 had paid Rs. 50 lakhs in three instalments, which would be evident from receipt dated 14.04.2016, 20.05.2016 and 24.05.2016. All these receipts were signed by the same person (petitioner) who had issued the refund cheque. On the date of issuance of receipts of consideration money, the petitioner was partner of the firm as he retired only on 25.10.2016. The retirement of the petitioner was not known to respondent No. 2 or a