GOPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-172
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on August 07,2018

Gopal Sharma And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) By this common order, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2321/2018 preferred by Gopal Sharma, Shankar Lal Sharma and Radha Mohan, and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4195/2018 filed by Siyaram Yadav, shall be decided together.
(2.) Regarding execution of an agreement to sell for sale of land, Ghasi Lal Sharma had earlier lodged case FIR No.360/2017 at Police Station Kanota, Jaipur City (East). Admittedly, on the same set of allegations, Shanti Devi, daughter-in-law of Ghasi Lal Sharma has lodged the second FIR bearing No.100/2018 at same Police Station Kanota, Jaipur City (East) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. The proceedings arising out of FIR No.360/2017 are still pending.
(3.) This court on 15.05.2018 had passed the following order:- "The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused executed agreement to sell on 11.7.2014 in favour of the complainant/respondent no.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that qua the agreement to sell, earlier father-in-law of respondent no.2 lodged FIR No. 360/2017 at Police Station Kanota. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the said FIR No. 360/2017, charge-sheet was filed in the court of concerned Magistrate on 21.12.2017 and the petitioner obtained bail from the competent court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the FIR No. 360/2017, statement of respondent no.2 has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 and same is part of the charge-sheet filed in FIR No. 360/2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that subsequently on same allegations second FIR has been lodged by the complainant/respondent no.2 bearing FIR No.100/2018 at Police Station Kanota. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that qua same transactions and same allegations second FIR is permissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Amit Bhai Anilchandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348 . Issue notice to the respondents for 7.8.2018. List this case on 7.8.2018. Till then, further proceedings arising out of impugned FIR No. 100/2018 registered at Police Station Kanota shall remain stayed.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.