Dr. Manoj Bhardwaj vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—Placing reliance on (2005) 10 SCC 228 (Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & another), Devendra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, and Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, , learned counsel for applicant prays for quashment of proceedings pending against the petitioner, which has been registered on the basis of report of Mukesh Jain.

Necessary facts, in short, are that on 05/05/2012 complainant Mukesh Jain submitted written complaint at police station making allegations that despite due agreement of sale of flat No. 4-7/B86, Sterling Home, Sarvadharam, B-Sector, Kolar Road, Bhopal accused did not execute the sale deed. On the basis of aforesaid report case u/s 405, 406, and 420 IPC was registered against the co-accused Rajesh at Crime no. 24/2009 and in which accused Rajesh is shown to be absconded and permanent arrest warrant has been issued against him.

With a view to extend help to co-accused Rajesh, present petitioner, who is real brother of Rajesh has conspired to sale aforesaid flat to one Dr. Abhay Kumar Likhi in which seller was the co-accused Rajesh, who was shown to be absconded in criminal case and petitioner who is real brother stood as attesting witness of the deal.

In FIR dated 30/10/2012 in Column of accused, names of Rajesh Bhardwaj, S/o Laxman Bhardwaj and Dr. Manoj Bhardwaj, S/o Laxman Bhardwaj both have been shown.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid dispute is purely of civil nature and placing reliance on Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, prayed for quashment of the proceedings because continuation of malicious case amounts to curtail the fundamental rights and on the basis of aforesaid malicious report, prosecution should not be continued against the present petitioner, who is well placed doctor in the locality. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that sale of one flat to two persons dishonestly is normally a civil dispute in which civil remedy very much available.

Per Contra, learned counsel for State submits that on perusal of case diary and on bare reading of FIR, it becomes clear that same flat was earlier sold to one Mukesh Jain, again has been sold to one Dr. Abhay Kumar Likhi. In charge sheet witness stated that aforesaid dishonest transaction was very well within the knowledge of the present petitioner.

In present case fore sale of one flat criminal case is pending against co-accused Rajesh, in which he is shown to be absconded and at the same time, he became seller of same flat to another person with help of present petitioner, who is real brother of accused Rajesh. At this stage nothing much can be presumed in favour of the petitioner. Rather it appears matter of trial where witnesses and other persons will be subjected to cross examination.

Considering aforesaid, it does not seem to be case of quashment of proceedings because its continuation cannot be deem to be an instance of abuse of process rather it is matter of trial. Accordingly this petition being devoid of substance, is dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.