Full Judgment
1 M.Cr.C.No.14288/2012 M.Cr.C No.14288/2012 31.01.2013 Petitioner by Shri Puspendra Dubey, Advocate with Shri Alok Vagrecha, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shr Akilesh Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate.
Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for objector/complainant.
This petition has been preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR registered at police station Kotwali, District-Chhindwara at Crime No.1047/2012 under section 420 IPC on the basis of report of Muhammad Muzzamil, Advocate.
Facts of the case, in short, are that on 05/10/2012 at about 3.15 pm at police station Kotwali, Muhammad Muzzammil made a complaint alleging that on 06/10/2004, petitioner agreed to sell a plot admeasuring 3600 sq.feet for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-.
At the time of agreement Rs.60,000/- have been paid in presence of the witnesses and after sometime Rs.5000/- more also have been paid.
Agreement to sell to that effect was executed.
Purchaser i.e Muhammad Muzzammil filed Civil Suit No.12-Aa/2005 seeking relief of specific performance of agreement.
Above suit was decided in Lok Adalat on the basis of compromise in which petitioner agreed to execute a sale deed in 8 days if balance amount is paid to him.
Later on complainant came to knot that aforesaid compromise was a fraud because petitioner had already 2 M.Cr.C.No.14288/2012 sold some part of the land in question to some other persons without knowledge of the complainant and deprived the complainant from the ownership and possession of the plot in question.
According to petitioner subsequent to Rajinama arrived at between the parties in Lok Adalat in civil suit, petitioner agreed on a piece of land admeasuring 1200 sq.feet and got transferred by a registered sale deed in the name of his wife as full and final satisfaction of agreement to sell initially executed between them in respect of purchase of plot.
Complainant has concealed this material fact in FIR and has misused process of law to rope in him in false case, which is, at the most a dispute of civil nature.
Execution proceedings is still pending in respect of judgment passed in Lok Adalat.
Per contra, it is submitted by learned Deputy Government Advocate, assisted by counsel for complainant that fact of purchase of plot of 1200 sq.
feet in the name of wife of complainant is not at all relevant and material fact because petitioner has played a fraud at the time of compromise arrived at between parties in Lok Adalat itself.
Though in Lok Adalat it was agreed that within a period of 8 days if balance amount is paid to the petitioner then he will execute registered sale deed in respect of particular plot of 3600 sq.feet plot with specific boundaries shown in agreement to sale executed between the parties.
Prior to that if petitioner had already been sold 1800 sq.feet land to one person and then 500 sq.
feet land to some other person.
Concealing aforesaid facts, 3 M.Cr.C.No.14288/2012 compromise was signed by him is indicative of a fraudulent intention, hence he is liable to be convicted for the offence of cheating.
Though fact of purchase of 1200 sq.feet plot in name of wife is a material fact and like any other fact complainant was obliged to disclose it in FIR, but it is also true that flouting the clauses of agreement to sell, document executed between parties, petitioner already sold 1800 sq.feet to one person and 500 sq.feet to another persons and even then had signed the compromise deed was with a fraudulent intention or not is a matter of fact and will be decided in the trial during cross-examination of witnesses.
Though some lapses are there on the part of the complainant also but taking entire facts and circumstances of the case into consideration it does not appear to be a case of quashment of FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2007 AIR SCW 667.(Inder Mohan Goswami & anr versus State of Uttaranchal & ORS.and submits that in FIR it is no where mentioned that at the time of signing of document agreement to sell, the petitioner had a dishonest intention, right from beganining, hence offence of cheating will not be made out.
But in case in hand, it is yet to be decided whether at the time of entering into compromise in Lok Adalat petitioner had already sold part of the land to some other persons and even then he signed the compromise to sell plot within 8 days, prima facie indicative of some dishonest intention.
Whether offence of cheating is made out or not will 4 M.Cr.C.No.14288/2012 be a matter of fact and matter to be considered at the time of framing of charge and/or during appreciation of evidence.
However, no case for quashment of FIR is made out.
Petition stands dismissed.
(Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge tarun