ORDER :

Chandra Kumar Songara, J.

Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner with the prayer for quashing of F.I.R. No.868/2019 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant with an inordinate delay and as a counter-blast to falsely implicate the petitioner, as no case is made out against the petitioner. Counsel has further submitted that a civil suit is also pending before learned Civil Court for taking possession of acquired land by the Housing Board and when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he approached the complainant to return total amount of sale consideration and the complainant has not returned the said amount. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has filed the criminal complaint before the learned Court of A.C.J.M. Kotputli on 05.07.2019. The said Court has sent a complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Kotputli. On such complaint, Police registered a case/F.I.R. No.496/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120- B of I.P.C. Lastly, counsel has prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned F.I.R. No.868/2019, alongwith all subsequent proceedings, be quashed & set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2, have opposed the submissions made herein-above and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has also submitted the factual report, which is taken on record.

5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2, has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijayander Kumar and Others v. State of Rajasthan & Another , (2014) 3 SCC 389 .

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record and the judgment cited herein-above.

7. In the case of N. Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj & Another , (2014) 10 SCC 616 , Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Choudhary Bhajan Lal on the scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has observed as under :-

"It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice [See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, CrPC. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora] (2013) 10 SCC 581."

8. In the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , 2021 CRILJ 2419, Hon'ble Apex Court, on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in Para 23 (iv), (v) & (vii), has observed as under :-

"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be c