[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Archana Gupta @ Bharti D/O Late Shri … vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 July, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:24863]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2475/2023
Archana Gupta @ Bharti D/o Late Shri Gopal Lal Rawat, R/o
House No. 114/12, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
…..Respondent
2. Kailash Chand Choudhary S/o Chhitar Mal, R/o 94/05,
Vijay Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, P.S. Shipra Path,
Jaipur.
----Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devanshu Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore,PP
Mr. Nishant Sharma )
Mr. Raj Kumar Garhwal)for the
complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
JUDGMENT
RESERVED ON :: 03.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 09.07.2025
1. Petitioner has filed the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 of BNSS for challenging the FIR No. 590/2018,
registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) for
committing offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent No.2
lodged an FIR against the petitioner as well as two other persons
Charan Singh and Rajesh Kumar Koolwal alleging therein that the
accused have been indulged in property dealing business. In
January, 2014, they represented before the petitioner with respect
to one land Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur and after showing
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 10:03:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24863] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023]
the land along with part construction raised thereon, other two co-
accused got one agreement to sale executed between petitioner
and complainant for selling land bearing Khasra No.174 measuring
6 Bighas and 1 Biswa for which the complainant made payment of
Rs.51,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty one lacs) to the petitioner and it was a
condition of the agreement that soon after opening of mutation of
the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner, sale deed shall be
executed after receiving the remain sale consideration.
Complainant further alleged in the FIR that for a long time, the
sale deed was not executed, than on enquiry, complainant could
learn that the aforesaid land is not in Khatedari of petitioner and
in fact litigation is going on in respect of aforesaid land. Still,
under the circumstances where title of the petitioner was not
clear, she had entered into agreement to sale with the
complainant and thus, her intention to cheat the complainant was
existing right from the beginning and thereby, she has maliciously
grabbed Rs.51 lacs from the complainant, which is a punishable
offence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that bare
perusal of the contents of FIR would reveal that the dispute has
arisen on account of non-performance on the part of the petitioner
in respect of terms and conditions of agreement to sale dated
29.01.2014, therefore, the dispute is of civil nature involving no
criminal element. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits
that the petitioner has no intention to cheat the complainant and
merely on account of the fact that her extended family has
initiated litigation with regard to Khatedari and mutation entries
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 10:03:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24863] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023]
which is pending before the Board of Revenue, sale deed could not
be executed. Hence, there is no mens-rea involved in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
earlier after investigation, the police authorities submitted the
negative Final Report by showing the dispute to be a civil nature,
yet on protest petition filed by the complainant, investigation was
again directed to be initiated. It was also submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that earlier even compromise has
entered into between the complainant and the petitioner, yet only
on account of inability on the part of the petitioner to carry out the
terms of compromise, Police authorities are harassing the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that
criminal prosecution cannot be used as a tool for recovery of
amount, which can otherwise be recovered only through civil suit.
Hence, he prayed for quashing the aforesaid FIR.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit
Chaturvedi and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
(SLP (Crl.) No.13485/2023), decided on 06.02.2024 and
Rikhab Birani and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
(SLP (Crl.) No.8592/2024, decided on 16.04.2025.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal misc. petition
and submitted factual report prepared by the Investigating Officer
of the aforesaid case.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that fair
reading of FIR itself would reveal that in order to cause undue loss
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 10:03:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24863] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023]
to the complainant and to derive undue gain for herself,
concealing the fact that the petitioner was not Khatedar of the
land in question as well as suppressing the on going litigation in
respect of land in question, maliciously showing the aforesaid land
as free from all encumbrances, the petitioner had induced the
complainant to give Rs.51 lacs in 2014 and despite repeated
demand, same is not being refunded. The very fact that
agreement to sale has been executed by the petitioner in respect
of a land for which she has got no right whatsoever to sale, would
in itself to show the criminal intention of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that
instead of returning the money, the petitioner is indulged in
further deceiving the complainant and in that process earlier in
order to safe her skin from the rigor of criminal prosecution, one
compromise was entered into by the petitioner mentioned therein
that she would get the mutation of the aforesaid land opened and
would get the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant up
till 15.07.2019 and in case she fails to get the sale deed registered
then the entire amount taken from the complainant shall be given
back to her, failing which the complainant would be at liberty to
prosecute the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant
would submit thus for last so many years on one or another
pretext, the petitioner has befooled the complainant by making
false promises with criminal intention to grab his hard earned
money. Hence, she is liable to be prosecuted under law.
10. I have examined the record and heard the rival contention
made by both the parties.
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 10:03:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24863] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023]
11. It is a settled preposition of law that scope of interference in
FIR or criminal investigation, while exercising inherent power
under Section 528 of BNSS is very very limited. Such interference
is called for only under the circumstances where from a bare
perusal of contents of FIR, no cognizable offence is made out
against the accused, or in the cases where the FIR is resultant of
apparent and manifest malafides or the FIR is clearly not made
out pursuant to any specific provisions of law.
12. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp.(1) SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down
following guidelines for the purpose of interfering in FIR, which
reads thus:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should
be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 10:03:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24863] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023]
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding
is instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
13. In the case of R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in
AIR 1960 SC 866, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 10:03:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24863] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023]
held that FIR should be quashed sparingly and in exceptional
matters where no offence whatsoever is made out from bare
reading.
14. Without making any comments over the merits of the case, I
am of the considered view that case of the petitioner does not call
for any interference in FIR, as the contents of FIR would not fall
within the four corners of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. The investigation is still
going on, where the Investigation Officer after examining the
documents of both the sides as well as other facts, can produce
the result before the competent Court. Hence, no prejudice or
miscarriage of justice is being caused to the petitioner, therefore,
the instant criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed, being
devoid of any substance and merits.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
pcg/106
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 10:03:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link