TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disposed of. 2. All the three petitioners have challenged FIR No. 72/2023 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. As per the impugned FIR, a complaint was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 with Crime Branch Jammu alleging therein that her husband had purchased a plot of land measuring 01 kanal in khasra No. 70 min from its owner through petitioner-Mohd. Afzal Beigh and constructed a house upon it. It is alleged in the impugned FIR that petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh represented to the complainant that he owns two more kanals of land adjacent to the aforesaid house of the complainant‟s husband being its sole owner and that he is ready to sell it. Believing upon the representation of petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh, the complainant expressed her willingness to purchase said two kanals of land. Accordingly, the deal was settled between them for an amount of Rs. 2.25 crores and an agreement to sell dated 09.12.2020 was executed by the parties. It is alleged in the impugned FIR that an amount of Rs. 1.80 crores was paid by the complainant to petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh through various bank transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR primarily on the ground that the transaction between them and respondent No. 2 was purely of a civil nature and merely because the petitioners failed to get the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 2 does not give her a cause to lodge an FIR and give it a criminal colour. It has been submitted that petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh has returned approximately an amount of Rs. 40 lacs to respondent No. 2 and that he had only taken an amount of Rs. 60 lacs from the said respondent. It has been further submitted that role of petitioner-Fehmida Kouser is only to the extent of issuing cheques in the amount of Rs. 1.80 crores and this was done by her in order to save her husband-petitioner Mohd Afzal Beigh against the harassment meted out to him by respondent No. 2 and her husband. It has been further contended that respondent No. 2 has already filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the court of learned Electricity Magistrate, Jammu and now the present FIR cannot proceed against the petitioner-Fehmida Kouser in connection with the same transaction. 7. Petitioner-Abdul Rashid Beigh, who ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as a Police Station in terms of SRO 133 dated 02.04.1991. 12. It is correct that the instant case does not have inter district ramifications and perhaps for this reason the Crime Branch could not have investigated the present case as it did not possess jurisdiction in terms of SRO 202 dated 03.06.1999, but then the impugned FIR has been registered in the year, 2023, therefore, the case would be governed by notification SO 232 dated 09.05.2022. As per this notification, the Police Station Economic Offences Wing(EOW), Jammu is vested with the jurisdiction to register and investigate cases inter alia relating to land grabbing/real estate frauds. In the instant case, the subject matter of the impugned FIR pertains to real estate fraud. Therefore, the same can very well be registered and investigated by the respondent-Crime Branch. There is no legal impediment in registration of the impugned FIR and its investigation by the respondent-Crime Branch. The contention of the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners is therefore, without any merit. 13. That takes us to the merits of the case. The main contention of the petitioners is that the transaction between them and responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [2005 (1) SCC 122]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv)The complaint is not required t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is alleged that petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh has executed agreement to sell dated 09.12.2020 in respect of the land measuring 2 kanals in khasra No. 70, Ward No. 71 Sidhra, Tehsil and District Jammu in favour of respondent No. 2. A perusal of the covenants of the said agreement to sell reveals that petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh represented himself to be owner in possession of the aforesaid land. He has also undertaken to execute the sale deed in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of respondent No. 2 as soon as he gets full and final payment and mutation of inheritance is attested in his favour. The covenants of the agreement to sell leave no manner of doubt in holding that petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh had represented himself to be the owner of the property in question. It is not in dispute that the property in question never belonged to petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh and it belonged to a third person, who according to the parties, has now executed a separate sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2 after receiving the sale consideration directly from the purchaser. Therefore, petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh despite having the knowledge that he was not the owner of the property in quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d into agreement to sell with respondent No. 2 and made her to part with partial amount of sale consideration. Thus, offence under Section 420 IPC, which is a cognizable offence, is made out from the allegations made in the complaint and the material available on record. 21. Apart from the above, petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh has executed a number of affidavits declaring therein that he has received an amount of Rs. 1.80 crores from respondent No. 2, which he has been unable to repay to her. Subsequently cheques have also been issued by his wife petitioner- Fehmida Kouser in connection with repayment of the aforesaid amount but the cheques have been dishonoured, in respect of which separate proceedings are stated to be pending. There are allegations against the petitioners that after receiving the amount from respondent No. 2 they have diverted the funds and out of the said funds, petitioner-Abdul Rashid Beigh has constructed a building in his village. This prima facie goes on to show that the petitioners were having fraudulent intention while entering into transaction with respondent No. 2 and all the petitioners appear to be having a role in it. The mere fact that the original o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llegations made in the impugned FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Agency disclose commission of cognizable offences. Therefore, this Court cannot prevent the Investigating Agency from discharging its statutory duty of investigating the impugned FIR. 25. It is a settled law that scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very limited as it has to be exercised in exceptional cases with great circumscription. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC online SC 315, while discussing the scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, has laid down the following principles: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and....