Order

25/02/2025

1. The instant misc. petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as “BNSS”) for quashing of the FIR No. 30/2025 at Police Station Bichiwal, District Bikaner for the offence under Sections 318(4)(Corresponding of Section 420 of IPC), 338 (Corresponding of Section 467 of IPC), 336(3) (Corresponding of Section 468 of IPC), 340(2)(Corresponding of Section 471 of IPC), 316(2)(Corresponding of Section 406 of IPC) and 61(2)(a) (Corresponding of Section 120B of IPC) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter to be referred as “BNS”).

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the complainant, claiming to be an authorized representative of Sahara Prime City Ltd., alleged that Bhawani Shankar (accused and petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1310/2025), Malaram, and Pyarelal, who owned agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 38/19/5, 38/19/2, and 63/19 (totaling 87 bighas), had entered into a “Developer’s Agreement” with the company in 2008, transferring ownership rights and registering the agreement with the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner. However, despite this agreement, the landowners subsequently sold portions of the land to Sukhdev Chayal (petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No. 1308/2025) through registered sale deeds. The complainant further stated that this sale was illegal as the landowners had no authority to sell without canceling the Developer’s Agreement, thereby alleging criminal offenses.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a bona fide purchaser who legally acquired the land in 2024 through valid registered sale deeds. Furthermore, he argues that the Developer’s Agreement itself is void ab initio as it purportedly transferred rights over agricultural land belonging to members of the Scheduled Caste community, which is legally impermissible. Additionally, the petitioner contends that the complainant lacks proper authorization to initiate criminal proceedings and that the dispute is purely civil in nature, being wrongfully given a criminal color. The petitioner submits that the impugned FIR is a gross abuse of the process of law, registered with a vindictive motive to harass and pressurize him. Consequently, no legal right, title, or interest was ever created in favor of the complainant’s company. The complainant also lacks the authority and locus standi to initiate the FIR. Moreover, a civil suit regarding the same subject matter is already pending before the Learned Additional Civil Judge, demonstrating that the present FIR is merely an attempt to give a civil dispute a criminal color. The petitioner being aggrieved by the false and frivolous allegations has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the B.N.S., seeking for the quashing of the FIR.

4. Learned public prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel of the petitioner. Learned public prosecutor has placed on record the factual report dated 11.02.2025 for the perusal of this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the FIR impugned and factual report alongwith other material made available to this Court.

6. After perusing the record and pondering upon the submissions and materials made available to the Court, prima facie, it is revealed that the matter relates to a land resale involving an accused named Bhawani Shankar, who allegedly sold land to the petitioner through two sale deeds dated 31.12.2024, despite an existing irrevocable development agreement with Sahara Prime City Ltd. since 11.06.2008. This agreement, which also involved financial transactions amounting to ₹1,40,26,000/-, legally bound Bhawani Shankar from selling or transferring ownership. However, in a criminal conspiracy with the petitioner and witnesses Vimal Sain and Abid Hussain, fraudulent sale deeds were registered on 09.01.2