VIJAY BISHNOI, J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 189/2014 of Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 had submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur stating that he is owner of the property Pritam Bhawan situated opposite Pratap School, M.G.H. Road, Jodhpur. It is contended by the complainant that he purchased the said property from its owners through their power of attorney on 29.5.2013 for a consideration of Rs.3,21,00,000/-. It is further stated by the complainant that in relation to the said property, he included two partners with him and thereafter, he and his partners entered into an agreement with the petitionerPrem Bhatia, Jugal Kishore Gehlot, Manoj Tatia and Babulal for vacating the first floor of the said property, which was rented to them by the previous owners, for Rs.90,00,000/-. The said agreement contains the signatures of the complainant, his partners, petitioner, Jugal Kishore and Manoj Tatia. Later on, two persons viz. Manoj Tatia and Babulal offered to purchase two rooms, which were in their possession and the complainant and his partners had accepted that offer. Thereafter, the complainant and his partners had paid Rs.67,50,000/- to the petitioner and Jugal Kishore for vacating seven rooms of the said property and thereafter on 6.3.2014, the petitioner and Jugal Kishore handed over the symbolic possession of the seven rooms to him, however, the petitioner sought time to vacate room No. 3, which the complainant had agreed. It is further contended by the complainant that for vacating seven rooms, a sum of Rs.67,50,000/- was given to the petitioner in front of Manoj Tatia, Babulal, Anand Arora, Jugal Kishore, Mohd. Ayub Gauri and 3-4 persons and the time for vacating the room No. 3 was also given in front of those persons. It is contended that in relation to that, an agreement dated 6.3.2014 was also executed. The complainant has further contended that the petitioner had asked for original agreement dated 6.3.2014 for the purpose of getting it photo copied and in good belief, the complainant gave the same to him, which he returned to him after some time and the complainant got the said agreement notarized and thereafter kept in his custody without looking into it. It is further contended that after some time when the complainant had asked the petitioner to vacate room No. 3, he made certain excuses and ultimately told him that he had already given him Rs.7,50,000/-, which he had received in lieu of vacating the room No. 3 and, therefore, he would not vacate the room No. 3. Upon insisting, the petitioner disclosed that in the agreement dated 6.3.2014, a receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- was given by partner of the complainant Sanjay Singhvi. The complainant has further alleged in the complaint that as a matter of fact no such receipt was given by Sanjay Singhvi at any point of time and the petitioner himself scribed the said receipt in his own writing on the original agreement dated 6.3.2014. It is also alleged that the petitioner cheated the complainant, and despite having received the amount for vacating the room No. 3 of the disputed property, he refused to vacate the said room.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that bare reading of the impugned F.I.R. does not disclose any offence under Section 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress the Court that as a matter of fact Dhanpat Raj Mehta, who sold the disputed property to the complainant and his partners, had no authority to sell the property on behalf of one of the original owners. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner was the tenant of Madhu Mehta and the property was not sold by her at any point of time to Dhanpat Raj Mehta, from whom, the complainant along with his partners had purchased the same.;