Sandeep Mehta - (1.) Heard.
(2.) These two misc. petitions have been preferred by the accused petitioners Dharmendra and Surendra Singh u/s. 482 Cr.P.c. with a prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 458/2016 registered at P.S. Subhash Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC.
(3.) The facts in brief are that the complainant claims to have executed registered sale deeds of multiple agricultural plots in favour of the accused petitioners in the year 2015. Though it was mentioned in the registered documents that the entire sale consideration was paid at the time of the execution of the registered sale deeds but in the F.I.R., the complainant has set up a contrary plea that as a matter of fact the accused did not pay full sale consideration to him while getting the sale deeds registered and certain other oral and written stipulations and conditions were agreed to by the parties which the accused failed to fulfill. He further alleged that the accused gave some cheques to the complainant for the balance consideration amount which were dishonoured upon being presented in the bank. As per the complainant, the accused gave a totally fraudulent inducement to the complainant for getting the registered sale deeds executed. Though the F.I.R. was filed against numerous other persons but after concluding investigation, the I.O. found only the present petitioners responsible for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. The I.O. after concluding investigation has recorded following findings:- 1. That the complainant Babu Ram Bansal divided agricultural land of his wife Kiran admeasuring 2 bighas 5 biswas located in Khasra No. 301 at village Atun Bhilwara into plots and he himself become the power of attorney for transacting these plots. The petitioner Surendera Singh is a property dealer. He gained confidence of the complainant by getting some of these plots sold to different parties. Later on Surendra Singh developed a fraudulent intention and introduced him to Dharmendra Lathi (petitioner in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 3872/2016) who was involved in business of gold and silver. The complainant was assured that Dharmendra Lathi would construct houses on the plots and in furtherance this fraudulent design the complainant was made to execute registered sale deeds of plots no. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 in favour of Dharmendra Lathi on 22.4.2015 without total consideration amount being paid. After execution of the registered sale deeds the complainant was made to execute another agreement dated 16.5.2015 on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- in which it was stipulated that the complainant had received a sum of Rs. 5 lacs at the time of execution of the sale deeds of these five plots and towards the remaining consideration a cheque of Rs. 17 lacs was being given by Surendra Singh to the complainant. The I.O. thus concluded that only a part payment of the consideration was made to the complainant towards sale of plots made in favour of Dharmendra Lathi. Though the transaction was made by Dharmendra Lathi but the cheque was given by Surendra Singh. 2. That the complainant also executed registered sale deeds of plot no. 25 to 31 in favour of Surendra Singh on 14.5.2015 without the total consideration being paid. The consideration was settled at Rs. 30,80,000/- Out of this amount, the accused paid Rs. 5,80,000/- and the balance sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was secured by a cheque for which an agreement was executed on 16.5.2015 on a stamp paper worth Rs. 100/- . The I.O. also found that as per these agreements executed interse between the parties, it was agreed that the registered sale deed would remain with the complainant till the consideration amount was cleared off but Surendra Singh fradulently induced the complainant and took away the registered sale deeds. Thereafter he sold the plots to one Satya Narain Bairwa. The cheques provided by Surendra Singh were dishonoured upon presentation in the bank.;