Sudhanshu Rai And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of an F.I.R No. 297 of 2020, under Sections 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC,

Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

According to the FIR, the informant was persuaded to purchase a land by petitioner no.1 and a Mukesh Yadav. Petitioner no.3 was owner of the

land; advance money was taken under the garb that the land is mortgaged in the bank and after payment, it would be freed for sale. The money was

transmitted, in the account of petitioner no.2, who happens to be the husband of petitioner no.3. Total Rs.16 lakhs were paid, but the land was not

transferred or agreement was not executed, in favour of the informant. Upon inspection, it was revealed that the banks' loan was paid long back in

10.10.2019. When on 30.01.2020, the informant visited the land and saw that the land was sold to some other person. Thereafter when requested

about money, according to the FIR, the informant was threatened etc.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner have been ready and willing to execute the agreement or sale-deed in favour of the

informant, but he had no money to purchase the land because the total value of the land in dispute was Rs.1.83 Cr. The petitioners are ready and

willing to return the money of the informant. Petitioner no.2 has kidney ailments.

On behalf of the State, it is argued that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. Insofar as petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, no

interference is warranted.

The money having been given to the petitioner no.2 is admitted. In fact, most of the amount, according to the FIR was transmitted through R.T.G.S.

There is no agreement in writing, but for commission of offences always such agreements are not required. It is the intention to cheat or dishonest

intention since, inception, which is a guiding factor. In the instant case, apparently cognizable offence is disclosed against petitioner nos. 1 and 2. But

the FIR does not disclose that any persuasion was done by petitioner no.3 or any money was deposited in her account. She was the owner according

to the FIR, but did she ever know that a deal to sell the land was made with informant? It has to be seen. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

insofar as petitioner no.1 and 2 are concerned, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. But insofar as petitioner no.3 is concerned, the matter needs

deliberation.

The writ petition insofar as it relates to petitioner no.1 Sudhanshu Rai and petitioner no.2 Shiv Asare Sharma is concerned, is dismissed.

On behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is requested that Police may be directed not to arrest the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in a routine

manner. Reference has been made to a judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Undoubtedly, arrest is not an automatic task of an Investigation Officer, he has to consider the complicity of a person and need to arrest. This Court

is sure that the Investigation Officer, would follow the directions of the Court as well as the statutory provisions in this regard.

With regard to petitioner no. 3, Sushila Rai, counter-affidavit may be filed within four weeks.

List this case in the week commencing 21.09.2020.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against petitioner no.3 Sushila Rai provided, she co-operates with the investigation.