Hemant Soni vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 204/2014 of Police Station, Gordhan Villas, Udaipur. The impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 alleging therein that he and his wife were allotted a plot by U.I.T. Udaipur in Udaipur Town in the year 1996. It is contended that the said plot was never sold either by respondent No. 2 or his wife at any point of time, however, the accused-persons have prepared a forged power of attorney dated 14.03.1998 of the respondent No. 2 and his wife and on the basis of the said forged power of attorney, sold the plot in question to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 29.08.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the plot from one Rajkumar Bhadaviya on the basis of power of attorney of respondent No. 2 and his wife and he is a bonafide purchaser. It is submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the fact that power of attorney executed in favour of Rajkumar Bhadaviya by respondent No. 2 and his wife was forged. It is further contended that there is no allegation in the impugned FIR that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating or prepared any forged document. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that he has already filed a complaint against respondent No. 2 and his wife before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur alleging therein that the respondent No. 2 and his wife along with other accused-persons have committed offence of cheating and the court below has summoned respondent No. 2 and his wife through arrest warrant.

On the strength of above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned FIR.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the respondent No. 2 have argued that in the impugned FIR specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he along with other accused persons has entered into a criminal conspiracy and prepared forged power of attorney and also got the plot registered in his name and, therefore, prima facie case is made out.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that so far as summoning of the respondent No. 2 in the complaint filed by the petitioner is concerned, the same has already been stayed by the revisional court while exercising its revisional power. Hence, no case for quashing the impugned FIR is made out.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned FIR.

From bare perusal of contents of the impugned FIR, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 has clearly stated in the FIR that the accused persons Rajkumar Bhadviya and Jitendra Lodha have entered into a criminal conspiracy with the petitioner along with Meetha Lal Vaishnav and Deepak Singh and prepared a forged power of attorney, which has never been executed by him and his wife and thereafter the petitioner has purchased the plot in question through a registered sale deed. The allegations against the petitioner regarding criminal conspiracy are clear from perusal of the contents of the FIR. It is a matter of investigation whether the petitioner has hatched any criminal conspiracy with other accused-persons and at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of crime.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that if from bare reading of FIR any prima facie case is made out against the accused, the FIR cannot be quashed. To mention a few-- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, AIR 1988 SC 709 : (1988) CriLJ 853 : (1988) 1 Crimes 780 : (1988) 1 JT 279 : (1988) 1 SCALE 261 : (1988) 1 SCC 692 : (1988) 2 SCR 930 ; State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp ; Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, AIR 1996 SC 309 : (1996) CriLJ 381 : (1995) 4 Crimes 171 : (1995) 7 JT 299 : (1995) 5 SCALE 670 : (1995) 6 SCC 194 : (1995) 4 SCR 237 Supp ; Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, (1996) 5 AD 341 : AIR 1996 SC 2452 : (1996) 87 CompCas 849 : (1996) CriLJ 3501 : (1996) 3 Crimes 60 : (1996) 6 JT 227 : (1996) 5 SCALE 99 : (1996) 5 SCC 591 : (1996) 3 SCR 360 Supp ; State of Bihar Vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, (1996) CriLJ 1372 : (1996) 1 Crimes 21 : (1996) 1 JT 601 : (1996) 1 SCALE 394 : (1996) 8 SCC 164 : (1996) 1 SCR 744 , Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1216 : (1999) CriLJ 1833 : (1999) 1 Crimes 136 : (1999) 2 CTC 243 : (1999) 2 JT 112 : (1999) 1 SCALE 697 : (1999) 3 SCC 259 : (1999) 1 SCR 1012 : (1999) 1 UJ 685 : (1999) AIRSCW 881 : (1999) 2 Supreme 442 ; M/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma P. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. and Others, (2000) CriLJ 1487 : (2000) 2 JT 426 : (2000) 2 SCALE 88 : (2000) 3 SCC 269 : (2000) 1 SCR 1169 : (2000) AIRSCW 682 : (2000) 2 Supreme 261 Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 2000 SC 2341 : (2000) CriLJ 2983 : (2000) 3 JT 604 : (2000) 2 SCALE 694 : (2000) 4 SCC 168 : (2000) 2 SCR 859 : (2000) AIRSCW 2077 : (2000) 3 Supreme 13 , M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and Another, (2001) 8 AD 494 : AIR 2001 SC 3014 : (2001) CriLJ 4705 : (2001) 8 JT 540 : (2001) 7 SCALE 126 : (2001) 8 SCC 645 : (2001) AIRSCW 4142 : (2001) 7 Supreme 397 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, AIR 2005 SC 9 : (2005) CriLJ 92 : (2004) 9 SCALE 177 : (2005) 1 SCC 122 .

So far as the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2 and other persons is concerned, it is for the investigating agency to consider that what will be the effect of the complaint in the FIR filed against the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, this criminal misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

The ad interim stay order dated 26.09.2014 is hereby vacated and the stay petition also stands dismissed.