The defense plea cannot be considered at the quashing stage if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], dated 23.11.2023, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.102/2019 by which the High Court has quashed FIR No.376/2018, dated 29.10.2018, registered with Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur Metropolitan (South), and proceedings emanating therefrom under Sections 420 , 406, 467, 468, 473, 474 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2025.035.26. The appellant before this Court is the first

16:58:22 IST Reason:

informant (de facto complainant) who lodged the

1 ‘the High Court’

First Information Report (FIR) alleging that by setting up a bogus/forged registered lease deed dated 29.04.2009, purported to have been executed by Jaipur Development Authority in favour of the second respondent, an agreement for sale was entered into by the accused with the de facto complainant whereunder a part of the subject matter of the alleged lease was proposed to be transferred in favour of the de facto complainant for a consideration of Rs.61,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakh) out of which Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) was obtained by way of advance. The allegation is that later, upon enquiry, it was found that the lease deed dated 29.04.2009 is a bogus document.

4. Thus, in a nutshell, the case against the accused is that they used a forged and fabricated document to cheat the de facto complainant. Additionally, it was alleged that the accused had cheated several persons by entering into similar transactions.

5. The second and third respondents, who are accused in the aforesaid case, prayed for quashing of the FIR by claiming that they themselves are victims of fraud. They pleaded that employees of their Company held out to them that the lease deed was a genuine document and on basis whereof the second and third respondents entered into an agreement with the de facto complainant. To show their bona fides, the second and third respondents offered to refund the money advanced by the de facto complainant.

6. The High Court quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings, inter alia, on the grounds (a) that earlier also FIR No.604/2017 was lodged wherein, after investigation, on the basis of statement of witnesses, involvement of only two other persons was found in creating forged pattas; (b) that the accused showed their bona fides by offering to refund the advance; (c) that agreement for sale was of the year 2014 whereas FIR was lodged in 2018 by which time the civil suit had become barred by time; (d) that there was another FIR No.3 of 2023, which covered the issues, therefore, multiplicity of proceedings would be avoided if the impugned FIR is quashed; and (e) that there is no specific allegation that the accused has forged the lease deed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the use of the forged lease deed is not in dispute. Whether the second and third respondents were themselves victims of fraud, is a matter of defence which cannot be considered at the stage of considering a prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and the proceedings emanating therefrom as the said prayer has to be dealt with in terms of the allegations made therein. Likewise, existence of another FIR by another victim of crime would not be material as separate transactions would beget separate offences. Therefore, once the allegations made in the First Information Report disclosed commission of a cognizable offence and the materials collected during investigation supported those allegations, there was no good reason for the High Court to have quashed the First Information Report and the consequential proceedin