Ashish Kumar Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The instant petition is for quashing the FIR dated 05.07.2017 bearing No.0464, lodged by respondent No.3 Ashwani Dubey against the petitioners,

who are the brothers and mother of respondent No.3/complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that father of respondent No.3 namely Late Goverdhan Prasad Dubey had sold a property for

Rs.57,60,000/- to one Star Buildcon and thereafter deposited entire sale consideration in the account of his wife i.e. petitioner No.3 Shaili Dubey in the

Bank and being aggrieved by such act, the complainant, who is the son of petitioner No.3 has lodged the FIR that he has been cheated and forgery

has been committed since his share of amount has not been paid. He would further submit that allegations of like nature do not make out a criminal

case as the entire allegations is about claiming share in the property and no fraud has been committed and the sale has been made by the father and

the amount is deposited and if the complainant is aggrieved, he can claim his right in the appropriate civil proceeding and the FIR cannot be used as a

arm twisting method in the like nature, therefore, the FIR may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the same and submit that sale of property has been made and the complainant has been subjected to

fraud and the amount of share has not been paid to him.

Perused the FIR, which reads as under:-

^^eSa mijksDr irs ij jgk gwaA ukSdjh jsYos esa djrk gwaA esjh ekrk 'kSyh nqcs] esjs nks HkkbZ jkds'k nqcs ,oa eqds'k nqcs }kjk esjs firk ,oa nknk ds

uke dk iSr`d lEifRr dks rhuksa feyhHkxr dj v'kksd uxj easa fLFkr Hkwfe dks cspdj tks esjs firkth thrs th csps Fks] mldk iSlk esjh eak ds uke ls

Nrrhlxs csps gq, tfeu dk iSlk ,oa ?kj ,oa tehu ugha ns

jgs gS] eak 'kSyh nqcs ,oa HkkbZ jkds'k nqcs ,oa eqds'k nqcs esjs ls /kks[kk/kM+h dj esjs gd dk ,oa fgLlk ugha ns jgs gSA fy[khr vkosnu is'k dj jgk

gwa] udy tSy gSA v'ouh dqekj nqcs izfr Jheku~ Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; iqfyl Fkkuk ljdaMk fcykliqj Nx fo""k; esjs gd dk fgLlk fnyk;s tkus ckcr~ egksn;

mijksDr fo""k;karxZr fuosnu gS fd eSa v'ouh nqcs vk;q 49 o""kZ firk Lo- xkso/kZu izlkn nqcs fuoklh iqjkuk ljdaMk c?kok eafnj ds ikl fcykliqj] rglhy o

ftyk fcykliqj N-x- dk gwa fdUrq vHkh orZeku esa jsYos dh ukSdjh ds dkj.k jk;iqj esa fuokljr gwaA egksn; esjh ekrk 'kSyh nqcs nks HkkbZ jkds'k nqcs

,oa eqds'k nqcs ds }kjk iqjkuk ljdaMk fcykliqj esa esjs firk ,oa nknk ds uke ds iSr`d lEifRr dks feyh Hkxr dj esjh ekrk Jherh 'kSyh nqcs ds uke ls

NrrhlxLo- firk }kjk vius thrsth fodz; fd;k x;k gSA ftl fodz; ds le; esjh lgefr gksuk vko';d Fkk ftls esjh eak ,oa HkkbZ;ksa ds }kjk vuns[kk dj esjs izfr

/kks[kk/kM+h dj fodz; dj fn;k x;k gS tks dkuwu vijk/k gSA esjh ekrk ,oa HkkbZ;ksa ds }kjk fodz; jde dks eq>s esjs gd fgLls dk jde eq>s fnykbZ tkos

rFkk esjs izfr fd;s x;s Ny ,oa /kks[kk/kM+h dk vijk/k ntZ dj mfpr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkos yxkrkj ,d tehu v'kksd uxj fcykliqj esa Fkk] ftls esjs Lo-

firkth ds }kjk 5 djksM+ esa fodz; fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds i{k esa ,xzhesUV gqvk Fkk mudk uke fuEu izdkj ls gS 2 'kSysUnz flag 2 xkSjo frokjh 3 ek/;e ';ke

lkgw lHkh fuoklh iqjkuk ljdaMk fcykliqj }kjk dz; fd;k x;k ,oa djk;k x;k Fkk ftleas ls eq>s esjs gd fgLls dk jde ugha fn;k x;k gS ftldh dh jde esjh eka

'kSyh nqcs ds uke ls NrrhlxyEcjnkj ds gSfl;r dk bLrgkj nSfud gfjHkwfe if=dk esa Kkiu izdkf'kr djk;k Fkk ftldk esjh ekrk ,oa HkkbZ;ksa ,oa fcYMjksa ds }kjk vuns[kk dj mYya?ku

fd;k x;k gS vkSj fcYMjksa us yxkrkj mudk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk jgk gS vr% mDr laca/k esa mfpr dk;Zokgh dj eq>s esjs gd LokfeRo dk fgLlk fnykbZ

tkus] layXu mijksDr lHkh lEifRr dk ch 1 [kljk dh izfr layXu gSA izkFkh v'ouh nqcs firk Lo- xkso/kZu izlkn nqcs irk f'kokuUn uxj lsUVj 03 lkabZ eafnj

ds ikl jk;iqj Nx eksckbZy uacj 9425511912 fnukad 05@07@2017-^^

Perusal of the contents of the FIR would show that the allegations have been made that the respondent No.3 was residing outside and the sale has

been executed by the father of the complainant namely Late Goverdhan Prasad Dubey, he is no more presently, and the entire sale consideration was

deposited in the account of Shaili Dubey. Even if the FIR is accepted as it is, it do not constitute any offence, as apparently the complaint would show

that it is a claim to have share. In the circumstances of this case, the respondent may have his remedy in the appropriate forum and the FIR in the like

nature cannot be set into motion to recover the amount of share.

Prima facie reading of the FIR do not constitute an offence and prima facie it reflects that it is a inter se dispute between the family members for

share of the amount of sale consideration.

In a result, the FIR being devoid of any complaint of cognizable offence or any criminal act is quashed. The CRMP stands allowed.