Gurdeep Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the FIR No.397/2015 of Police

Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar.

It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition NO.2680/2015 before this Court with the similar prayer, however, the same

was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7.9.2017 while granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representation before the investigating

authority and further a direction was issued to the investigating authority to consider the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law

before completing the investigation. This Court has further ordered that in case the investigating authority needs to arrest the petitioner, then the

petitioner shall be given 15 days’ notice before making such arrest.

As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the direction dated 7.9.2017 given in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2680/2015, the

petitioner has already filed a detailed representation to the investigating authority, however, the investigating authority has not considered the said

representation in right perspective.Â

Learned counsel has also argued that from bare perusal of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, it is clear that no case for the offence

punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be set aside.Â

It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact the original allotment of the petitioner was cancelled and later on

the respondent No.3 allotted an alternate land to the petitioner on 12.7.2015 and on the same day, he was forced to execute a sale deed in favour of

niece of the respondent No.3.

It is also contended that at the time of execution of said sale deed, the complainant was very much there and he, in connivance with the respondent

No.3, has falsely implicated the petitioner because the petitioner had complained about the respondent No.3 while alleging that he got the sale deed of

the land allotted to him executed in favour of his niece by putting pressure upon the petitioner. It is also contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the police has not conducted any investigation in respect of role of the respondent No.3 and is bent upon to file charge sheet against the

petitioner in a false case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that FIR against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law as the complainant has remedy of

filing suit for specific performance against him.

 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc. petition and submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant

to the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2017 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2680/2015 was duly considered and the police after thorough

investigation found the involvement of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C. It is also argued that as a matter

of fact, the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigating authority in the investigation and on account of that the investigation in the impugned FIR

is not being carried out properly.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record as well as case diary.Â

The respondent No.2 has registered the impugned FIR against the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner has agreed to sell 40 bighas of

uncommand land, allotted to him, for consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is alleged that in respect of the said transaction, a sale agreement dated

12.7.2012 was executed by the petitioner and at that time the complainant had given him Rs.7,50,000/- in presence of two witnesses i.e. Resham

Singh and Makhan Singh. It is alleged that the fact regarding payment of Rs.7,50,000/- is mentioned in the sale agreement and it is also mentioned

that in case any alternate land is allotted to the petitioner in future in lieu of the land already allotted, he would sell the same to him also. The

complainant has further alleged that the original allotment of the petitioner was later on cancelled and alternate land was allotted to him but the

petitioner has sold the said land to one Farha daughter of Mumtaj Ali on 11.7.2015, instead of him, on the same day when the alternate land was

allotted to him.  Therefore, the complainant has alleged that the petitioner has committed cheating with him and has misappropriated the amount of

Rs.7,50,000/- which he had given to him at the time of execution of the agreement. It is alleged by the complainant in the impugned FIR that the

complainant asked the petitioner for returning the said amount, but the petitioner has refused to return the same.

During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statements of complainant and two witnesses namely Resham Singh and Makhan

Singh and they have stated that the sale agreement dated 12.7.2012 has been executed by the petitioner and he has also received Rs.7,50,000/- from

the complainant. It is alleged by the witnesses that later on the petitioner sold the land to Farha daughter of Mumtaj Ali instead of petitioner and as

such has committed the offence of cheating by misappropriating the aforesaid amount.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the case diary, I do not find any case for quashing the impugned FIR as the

allegations contained in the impugned FIR as well as the evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation suggest prima facie case

against the petitioner.

Hence, no case for interference is called for. The criminal misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.