AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This court on 15.5.2018, had passed the following order:-
“Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.779/2017 dated 22.12.2017 registered at
Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406,453 and 120-B I.P.C.
This Court on 14.03.2018 had passed following order :- “The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the complainant has made a
grievance that the petitioner being a seller having received earnest money in pursuance of agreement to sell has not executed the sale deed. The
learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that he is ready and wiling to return earnest amount received vide agreement to sell dated 8.7.2017.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners have already filed a suit for specific performance. It is submitted that
nonexecution of saledeed in pursuance of agreement to sell will only have civil consequences. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that since the respondent complainant had not come forward with the remaining sale consideration, therefore, saledeed could not be executed. Mr.
Govind Gupta, has caused appearance for the respondent no.2. He prays for an adjournment to seek instructions from the respondents, whether he is
ready and willing to accept the amount of earnest money specified in agreement to sell dated 8.7.2017. List this case on 15.5.2018. Till then, further
proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR shall remain stayed.â€
Today, Mr. Rajeev Mehrishi, advocate has caused appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2.
Mr. Rajeev Mehrishi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2, has submitted that initial agreement to sell (Annexure-1) was
executed on 08.07.2017 and in the said agreement to sell, a sale consideration was fixed as Rs.57,50,000/-. Counsel has further submitted that since
collector rate was Rs.22,00,000/-, it was agreed that Rs.30,99,000/- shall be paid to the complainant at the time of taking possession. Counsel contends
that an agreement to sell (Anneuxre-2) was executed on 28.07.2017 for sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-. Counsel further contends that
Rs.30,99,000/- was paid to the petitioners in cash at the time of taking possession. Lastly, Counsel submits that the said amount was withdrawn by the
respondent No.2 from his two banks accounts i.e. ICICI Bank and Vijaya Bank.
Mr. Vikas Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has denied this fact.
In the peculiar facts, to arrive at truth, assistance of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department is required.
Hence, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, on whose area Tonk Road, Jaipur fall, is directed to depute an Income Tax Officer to examine
agreement to sell Annexure-1 and Annexure2 respectively and find out, whether Rs.30,99,000/- was paid by the respondent No.2 to the accused
underhand or not.
A liberty is also granted to the parties to appear before the Income Tax Officer and produce other documents in their favour.
To await the report of the Income Tax Officer, list on 07.08.2018.
Till then, the interim order, already in favour of the petitioners shall continue.
The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to serve a copy of this order upon Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tonk Road, Jaipur
through Mr. R.B. Mathur, Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.â€
In pursuance of the said order, Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur has submitted report. As per the said report Rs.30,99,000/- were paid to the
petitioners in cash.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has controverted this fact.
In the present case, disputed question of facts are involved, whether as per the first agreement to sell, amount in cash was paid under hand to the
petitioners or not. This Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot determine disputed questions of facts which require evidence.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigating officer be directed to consider the version of the petitioners
and the documents produced by the petitioners for arriving at the truth.
I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the investigating officer is directed to consider the version of the
petitioners alongwith documents produced by him.
A further direction is given to the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) to send report of inquiry received from Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur to the
investigating officer.
In view of above, the present petition is disposed of without causing any interference.