Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4731
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Rajinder Mohan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
CRM-M No. 8766-2018(O&M)
Decided On : 06-12-2018
Mr. R.S.Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the Respondents
A FIR can be quashed if it is found to be filed with malafide intentions and for an oblique motive.
Headnote:
The High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, holding that it was filed with malafide intentions and for an oblique motive to arm twist the petitioner by involving him in the FIR for the purpose of settling scores with the brother of the present petitioner. The Court found that the allegations in the FIR were false and that there was no evidence to support the complainant's claim that he had suffered any loss due to the petitioner's actions.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant and the petitioner were involved in a business transaction involving the purchase of properties from a bank auction. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had acted without authority in the purchase process, had forged documents, and had taken away the entire property worth Rs. 4 Crores, while he had paid only Rs. 62 lacs. The petitioner denied these allegations and claimed that he had acted with the complainant's authorization and had paid for the share of the property that he had received.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations in the FIR were false and that there was no evidence to support the complainant's claim that he had suffered any loss due to the petitioner's actions. The Court noted that the complainant had participated in the purchase process and had made payments towards the purchase of the properties. The Court also found that the petitioner had acted with the complainant's authorization and had paid for the share of the property that he had received.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had acted without authority in the purchase process and forged documents? 2. Whether the petitioner had taken away the entire property worth Rs. 4 Crores, while he had paid only Rs. 62 lacs? 3. Whether the complainant had suffered any loss due to the petitioner's actions?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the FIR was filed with malafide intentions and for an oblique motive to arm twist the petitioner by involving him in the FIR for the purpose of settling scores with the brother of the present petitioner. The Court found that the allegations in the FIR were false and that there was no evidence to support the complainant's claim that he had suffered any loss due to the petitioner's actions.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner. However, the Court clarified that since Rajiv Gaddh was not a petitioner nor the case had been considered from the point of view business dealings between the complainant and the said Rajiv Gaddh, therefore, the complainant would be at liberty to continue with his remedies against Rajiv Gaddh in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0687 dated 22.11.2017 registered under Sections 120-B, 416, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 of the Indian Penal Code, at City Police Station Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to have reference to the contents of the FIR, which is attached as Annexure P-1 with the petition and which reads as under:-
"First Information Contents At this time a complaint No.1136 dated 02.03.2017 was received in the police station from Subodh Parkash, which is as under:
To, The Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar.
Subject: For registration of FIR against (1) Rajiv Gaddh son of Sh. Krishan Lal Gadh R/o 189 Shastri Colony, Yamuna Nagar (2) Rajinder Mohan S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Gaddh, 120, Golf Link, New Delhi (3) The then Regional Manager Jammu & Kashmir Bank (4) The then General Manager of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Ansal Plaza, New Delhi under Sections 416, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B of IPC.
Respected Sir, The complainant most respectfully submits as under:-
1. That the complainant is a permanent resident of 57, Professor Colony Yamuna Nagar and he is a sole proprietor of M/s Astha Trading Company, Yamuna Nagar.
2. That the complainant was having very cordial relations with accused No.1 and 2.
3. That in the year 2005, the accused No.1 and 2 approached the complainant and told him that there is one property situated at Hoshiarpur (Punjab) and the same is mortgaged with the bank of accused No.3 and 4 against the loan account of M/s Parbhat General Agencies, Mumbai and they told him that the account of M/s Parbhat General Agencies had be became NPA and stricken and they also told that the bank of accused No.3 and 4 is going to auction this property under SARFAESI Act, 2002.
4. That the accused no.1 and 2 taking the advantage of cordial relations with the complainant made him convinced that he should invest his money for purchasing above said property and at that time, the accused No.1 and 2 also told the complainant that he will definitely get a good appreciation whenever he will sell the same. Keeping in view the cordial relation with accused No.1 and 2, the complainant came in there allurements and agreed to invest his money for purchasing the properties going to be sold by the bank of accused No.3 and 4.
5. That the accused No.1 and 2 in connivance with each other made the complainant to bid for purchasing the above mentioned property and during that course the accused No.1 deliberately with malafide intention in his mind posed himself to be the sole proprietor of M/s Ashtha Trading Company and signed all the documents with bank for purchasing the property in the capacity of proprietor M/s Ashtha Trading Company without the consent of complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that is was very well in the knowledge of accused No.3 and 4 that accused No.1 has nothing to do with the Aastha Trading Company and it was also in the knowledge that the complainant i.e. Mr. Subodh Parkash is the sole proprietor of M/s Aastha trading Company who has offered bid for the purchase of above said property, even then the accused No.3 and 4 did all the correspondence regarding issue of sale certificate of said property with accused No.1 in the capacity of proprietor of Aastha Trading Company deliberately and knowingly.
6. That initially for purchasing the above said property Mr. Subodh Parkash Proprietor of M/s Aastha Trading Company had transferred the amount of Rs. 1.00 crore to the bank as initial/earnest money out of the bid amount, of Rs. 4.00 crores.
7. That after this taking the advantage of faith of the complainant accused No.1 and 2 without bringing anything in the knowledge of complainant the accused No.1 float one company in the name of M/s JMD Special Steel Pvt. Ltd. and became its director along with the complainant. Aft
