AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
These two misc. petitions involve identical question of facts and law and are thus being decided together by this common order.
The petitioner herein has approached this Court through this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR Nos.06/2015 and 07/2015 lodged at Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh by Manish Kumar and Rakesh Kumar respectively. The foundation of both the FIRs is that the petitioner herein is a permanent resident of a State other than Rajasthan. He allegedly procured a forged bonafide resident certificate, and using the same, fraudulently induced both the complainants to sell their land to him. The proceedings of the impugned FIR are sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner has already been tried for the same allegations in a case arising out of FIR No.56/2008, Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh lodged by Sohanlal. The Judgment dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh whereby, the petitioner has been convicted, has been annexed with the misc. petition. In this Judgment, the trial court has held that the petitioner procured the fraudulent bonafide resident certificate and thereby, falsely portrayed himself to be a resident of State of Rajasthan and thereby, he induced the seller Sohanlal to sell his land to him in this fraudulent manner.
During the course of arguments, Shri Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioner has placed on record, copy of the Judgment dated 08.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.10/2017 whereby, the accused petitioner has been acquitted of the charges holding that he did not cheat the complainant Sohanlal in any manner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant-respondents have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel.
Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioner; Shri Kharlia, learned counsel representing the complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor; and after going through the material placed on record, I am of the firm opinion that the FIRs under challenge do not disclose necessary ingredients of cognizable offences against the petitioner. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner purchased the land after making payment of due consideration to the land owners i.e. the complainants herein. The fact that the complainants have tried to initiate prosecution against the petitioner after having received the full consideration amount and having executed the registered sale deed is rather indicative of their vindictive approach. Apparently, as the sale deeds were executed with due consideration, the complainants were neither fraudulently induced nor were they put to any loss whatsoever. In addition thereto, a competent criminal court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh has already concluded that by entering into such a transaction, the petitioner did not cheat anyone. The appellate court arrived at the following conclusions in the judgment of acquittal dated 08.06.2018:-
"23. अधीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलार्थी अभियुक्त भालाराम को धारा 420 भारतीय दण्ड संहिता 1860 के अन्तर्गत छल करने के अपराध के लिए दोषसिद्ध किया जाकर दण्डित किए जाने का आदेश पारित किया गया है। इस संबंध में पत्रावली के ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन से हस्तगत मामलें में परिवादी सोहनलाल व अभियुक्त भालाराम के मध्य मुकदमेबाजी होना साक्ष्य से आया है। भालाराम की ओर से अधीनस्थ न्यायालय के समक्ष दस्तावेजात प्रदर्शित करवाए गए हैं जिनमें वर्ष 1995, 1998, 2003, 2006, 2007 की मतदाता सूची में उसका नाम सिलवाला खुर्द में अंकित होना जाहिर होता है। दस्तावेज निरस्ती के समय भी उसे नहीं सुने जाने का तथ्य अभियोजन पक्ष की ओर से स्वीकार किया गया है। इसके साथ ही अपीलार्थी अभियुक्त भालाराम द्वारा किसके साथ छल किया गया, ऐसा कोई आरोप अभियुक्त पर अधीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा लगाया जाना जाहिर नहीं होता है। अभियोजन संस्थित करने वाला परिवादी एक प्राईवेट व्यक्ति है, उसे उक्त विक्रय पत्र निष्पादित होने से कोई सदोष हानि होना जाहिर नहीं होता है।
...................................................... अभियुक्त भालाराम के विरूद्ध धारा 193, 420 भारतीय दण्ड संहिता 1860 के मूल अपराधों के आरोप साबित होना नहीं पाए गए हैं। इसके साथ ही अभियुक्त का अन्य सह अभियुक्त के साथ मिलकर आपराधिक षडयंत्र करने के संबंध में धारा 120 बी भारतीय दण्ड संहिता 1860 का अपराध भी युक्तियुक्त सन्देह से परे साबित नहीं हुआ है। इस प्रकार उक्त विवेचन के आधार पर अधीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलार्थी अभियुक्त भालाराम को धारा 420, 120 बी भारतीय दण्ड संहिता 1860 के अपराध के अन्तर्गत दोषसिद्ध किया जाकर उसे उक्त अपराधों के लिए दण्डित करने के संबंध में पारित आदेश त्रुटिपूर्ण होना प्रतीतहोता है जो कि अपास्त किए जाने योग्य है।"
The aforesaid conclusions arrived at by the appellate court indicate that neither could the accused be prosecuted for the offence under Section 193 of the IPC nor did he cheat the seller Sohanlal who stands at par with the complainants of the case at hand.
In this background, I am of the firm opinion that permitting continuance of investigation of the impugned FIRs would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law. This Court is full satisfied that the FIRs under challenge do not disclose the necessary ingredients of cheating, fraud or forgery. Regarding the offence under Section 193 Cr.P.C., the prosecution could only have been initiated by the public servant concerned. Thus, the impugned FIRs deserve to be quashed.
In this background, these misc. petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. All further proceedings of the impugned FIR Nos.06/2015 and 07/2015 registered at Police Station Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh are quashed qua the petitioner. Stay applications are disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.