Arun Kumar Keshar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Petitioner has filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC seeking relief of quashment of F.I.R. No. 332/2022 registered at police station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that petitioner entered into an agreement to sale of land bearing khasra no. 1464/11 measuring 18 Dismil situated at Ward No. 13, Ramanujganj, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj with Respondent No. 2/ complainant for total consideration of Rs. 53 Lakh. At the time of execution of agreement to sale, petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2 Lakh and Rs. 5 Lakh through bank cheque on 31.10.2019. For some reason the sale deed could not be executed as one third-person by name Dhruv Thakur took possession of the land claiming it to be his land. The money paid was not returned. Report was lodged, based upon which F.I.R. was also registered.

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that from bare reading of the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is apparent that the complaint made is purely of civil nature and therefore the civil dispute cannot be converted into the criminal case for pressurizing a person for execution of sale deed or refund of advance amount. He further contended that the contents of F.I.R. mentions of payment of Rs. 2 Lakh cash and Rs. 5 Lakh through bank cheque, however the cheque was not encashed and amount of Rs. 5 Lakh remain in the account of Respondent No. 2/ complainant. Respondent No. 2 is pressurizing to pay the amount of Rs. 5 Lakh which the petitioner has not encashed. He also contended that sofar as the possession of one Dhruv Thakur is concerned, petitioner has already taken recourse of law and filed an application under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and against the dismissal of said application under Section 250, appeal is filed which is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). There is no contention in the report or F.I.R. of petitioner cheated respondent No. 2 in any manner and therefore the F.I.R. be quashed. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Archana Rana vs. State of U.P., (2021) 3 SCC 751; R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739; G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636; Kapil Agrawal vs. Sanjay Sharma, (2021) 5 SCC 524; Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab in CRA No. 581/2023 decided on 01.03.2023; Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P., AIR OnLine 2022 SC 923; M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd., AIR 2006 SC 2780.

Ms. Richa Shukla, learned State counsel would submit that based on the report, F.I.R. was registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed by the concerned police before the competent court. Petitioner has not challenged the charge-sheet. She further contended that the trial has already been commenced and if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, he has right to challenge the order of framing of charges.

Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 would submit that Respondent No. 2 entered into agreement to sale showing land which is not owned by them. According to the sale deed by which the land was purchased by Vijay Kumar Keshari along with other purchasers of khasra no. 1464/11 and the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed are different than that of shown to Respondent No. 2. Upon receiving the complaint the Station House Officer (SHO) wrote letter to Tehsildar to verify the location of land in dispute. In turn, Tehsildar vide letter dated 02.10.2022 informed that the disputed land is located at other place. Panchnama of the land prepared on spot is also filed which also bears signature of petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on both sides and also perused the contents of F.I.R.

Sofar as, the law with regard to prayer for quashment of F.I.R. is concerned, at this stage the contents of F.I.R. primarily are to be considered whether the report discloses any cognizable offence or not. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the land is of Dhruv Thakur, by manipulating the map, disputed land was recorded in the name of Vijay Keshari, uncle of Respondent No. 2. The land of Vijay Keshari is some other land on which some one else is in possession. In F.I.R. it is also mentioned that Vijay Keshari was never in possession of land. The allegations if read as it is would show that the petitioner entered into agreement to sale of land which was not possessed by him and took advance. The proceeding under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was filed much after entering into agreement to sale. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 has observed that in order to examine as to whether factual contents of F.I.R. disclose any prima facie cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise powers like an Appellate Court. The question is required to be examined keeping in view the contents of F.I.R. and prima facie material as such stage. High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can draw its own inferences from the contents of the F.I.R. and the material relied on. In the case of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that quashing of F.I.R. can only be in exceptional circumstances and some of the exceptional circumstances are held to be where manifestly there is some legal bar against institution or continuation of prosecution; where allegations made even if taken at face value do not constitute any offence; allegations made do not constitute cognizable offence and allegations made are so absurd and improbable that any prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused.

In view of the above facts, decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Sarabjit Kaur (supra) is on different facts as the complainant therein made complaint which was investigated and finally it was opined that the dispute is civil in nature, no police action is required. Another complaint was made without disclosing the fate of his earlier complaint. Referring to the earlier query made the complaint was consigned to record and thereafter the F.I.R. was registered. In that facts of the case, Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the petition and quashed the F.I.R. The case of Ramesh Chandra Gupta (supra) and other decisions relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts.

For the foregoing discussion and further that charge-sheet has already been filed which is not available before this Court, I do not find any merit in this petition.

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.