S.482 CrPC Petition Dismissed: High Court Finds Prima Facie Case of Cheating & Forgery (Ss. 406, 420, 467 IPC), Defers Defence to Trial Stage - 2025-06-16

High Court Refuses to Quash FIR in Real Estate Fraud Case, Cites Prima Facie Offence

Jaipur: The High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar , has dismissed a petition seeking the quashment of FIR No.375/2023, registered at Police Station Chomu, Jaipur (West). The FIR alleges offences including cheating (Section 420 IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), forgery (Sections 467, 468 IPC), using a forged document as genuine (Section 471 IPC), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC). The court found that a prima facie case was disclosed, necessitating investigation and precluding interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) at this stage.

Case Background: Allegations of Property Fraud and Bounced Cheque

The complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that M/s A. Gangwal Real Estate LLP, involved in developing "Iconic Residency," had induced him to purchase flat No.103 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,57,05,602. The complainant paid Rs. 50 lakhs in instalments during 2016, for which receipts were issued.

However, with no construction progress visible for five years, the complainant sought a refund. The petitioner, allegedly associated with the firm, issued a cheque for Rs. 50 lakhs dated April 10, 2023. This cheque was dishonoured on July 21, 2023, as the bank account it was drawn upon was already blocked. This led the complainant to file the FIR, alleging he had been cheated.

Petitioner's Plea: Denial of Involvement and Misuse of Cheques

The petitioner, represented by Mr. S.S. Hora , argued for quashing the FIR on several grounds: * He was inducted as a partner in the firm on January 1, 2015, but retired on October 25, 2016. * He claimed he never entered into any sale agreement, issued receipts, or was a partner at the time the refund cheque was issued. * He alleged that signed cheques from his tenure as a partner were misused, and that several FIRs had been lodged against him by different alleged beneficiaries. * The petitioner stated he had also lodged his own FIR (No. 443 dated June 27, 2023) against Respondent No. 2 and others, alleging fraud. * He contended that the documents relied upon by the complainant were forged and that the allegations were absurd and mala fide, fitting grounds for quashing as per State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal .

Complainant's Counter: Petitioner's Active Role and Knowledge

Mr. Sudhir Jain, counsel for Respondent No. 2, countered that: * The petitioner's partnership from January 1, 2015, was undisputed. * The Rs. 50 lakhs were paid via three instalments in 2016 (receipts dated April 14, May 20, and May 24, 2016), all allegedly signed by the petitioner, who was a partner at that time. * The petitioner's retirement was not known to the purchasers. * The refund cheque was issued by the petitioner as an "authorised person" of the firm with fraudulent intent, knowing he was no longer authorized and the account was blocked. This, it was argued, constituted the creation of a false document. * The cheque dishonour due to a blocked account, not a signature mismatch, undermined the petitioner's "misused cheque" claim. * Police investigations in this FIR and another (FIR No. 360/2023) had reportedly found the allegations against the petitioner to be true. * Reliance was placed on Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (accused's material not to be considered under S.482 CrPC) and Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (parallel proceedings under S.138 NI Act and IPC are permissible).

Court's Reasoning: Prima Facie Case Warrants Investigation

The Court, after considering the arguments, delved into the scope of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, referencing key Supreme Court judgments like V. Ravi Kumar v. State and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra . These precedents establish that the High Court's power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and it cannot delve into a factual inquiry to ascertain the veracity of allegations at this preliminary stage.

The judgment highlighted several "undisputed facts": * The petitioner was a partner from January 1, 2015, to October 25, 2016. * The consideration money was allegedly received and receipts issued during this period. * The refund cheque was signed by the same person who allegedly issued the receipts. The court noted, "Evidently this issue requires investigation / trial and cannot be shut down at the threshold."

The Court found a prima facie case, stating:

"The FIR prima-facie discloses a case of dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time of issuance of refund cheque for the reason that prima-facie the petitioner was aware that he was no longer a partner in the said firm, therefore, only a competent person could have issued the refund cheque."

Further, the court observed that the act of signing the cheque as an authorized person of the firm, despite allegedly not being one, prima facie made out an offence of making a false document.

Emphasizing the limits of its intervention, the Court stated:

"Once the FIR discloses prima-facie cognizable offence, it must be investigated and it cannot be quashed simply considering the probable defence of the petitioner... trustworthiness of the allegation cannot be looked into at this stage."

Decision and Implications

Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments that the allegations were absurd or inherently improbable, or that the proceedings were mala fide, the High Court dismissed the petition.

The dismissal means that the investigation into FIR No.375/2023 will continue. The petitioner will have to face the investigative process and, if charges are framed, present his defense during the trial. The court has clearly indicated that the petitioner's claims, such as the misuse of signed cheques, are matters for trial and cannot be used to halt the investigation at its inception.