Director Mr.satyanarayan Guptason Of Late Mr. Radhe v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor on 16 May 2025

Judgment

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. Raj Kumar Gupta Son Of Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, Aged About 55 Years, Having Permanent Resident Of 1202, Block-8, Royal Green, Sirsi Road, Karni Vihar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302034, at Present Residing At Plot No. 93-A Rajendra Nagar Panchyawal, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302034. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. S.S. Hora, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejvani, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Gopal Singh Bareth, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Reserved on -::-12/05/2025 Pronounced on -::- 16/05/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025]

1. By way of present criminal misc. Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the F.I.R. No.75/2024, registered at Police Station Kalwar, Jaipur City (West) for the offences under Sections 384, 387, 406, 420, 467, 468 & 120B of IPC.

2. It is contended that the respondent No.2-complainant in the impugned F.I.R. alleges that on 22.04.2008, he, along with an individual Mahipal Yadav, had incorporated an entity, namely Kshitij Colonizers Private Limited. For development, they approached the petitioners, under which, on 05.07.2011, a development agreement was executed. Still, the petitioner did not develop the land according to the standards, nor did they pay the amounts according to the accounts. It has further been alleged in the FIR that in 2011, the petitioner became a partner in the said entity and unlawfully removed the respondent No.2 and Mahipal Yadav. It is further alleged that the petitioner gave false assurance and the complainant consented to the petitioner for procuring a loan of Rs.6 crores in the name of Kshitij Colonizers Private Limited.

3. The petitioner to settle the dispute above, had offered plot No.C-34, F-369 & F-370 in the Parth City, Kalwar, Jaipur being invoked by the petitioner No.2. It is further averred in the FIR that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50 lacs in cash and undated cheques bearing Nos.1017, 1018 and 1019 and thereafter sold the two plots i.e. Plot No.BS-2 and C-34 to the others, thus committed an offence of cheating with the complainant and others. It is contended that according to the impugned FIR, the alleged cause of action arose on 19.10.2016, whereas the FIR has been lodged [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025] after a hiatus gap of more than 8 years. It is also contended that the complainant while lodging the impugned F.I.R., had deliberately concealed the material facts and the documents that on 06.10.2023, the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. No.474/2023 before the very same Police Station against the complainant and his other associates, wherein the petitioner had specifically alleged that the four plots including plot No.BS-2 was unlawfully tried to encroach by the complainant and other associates; the matter is still under investigation. The above facts exhibit that the present FIR against the petitioner is lodged in vengeance and a counterblast to the petitioner’s FIR No.474/2023. It is also contended that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR revealed that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are missing and that it is merely to criminalised a civil dispute. The complainant claimed that he was unlawfully removed from the company, which is wholly misconceived; the public record available on the web portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs would show that the complainant himself had tendered his resignation on 25.04.2013. The statutory return thereof in prescribed E-Form 32 were also filed with the Registrar of Companies on 28.04.2013, and in the said return, the petitioner and her wife have been shown as Directors of the Company. The petitioner has placed on record the Annexure-3, substantiating that the company was incorporated on

22.04.2008 and 04.07.2011, the petitioner and her wife, Sushila Gupta, were Directors of the Company. It is also contended that the allegation regarding payment of Rs.50 lakhs in the case is also fallacious and not substantiated by any documentary evidence. It is highly improbable that a transaction of this magnitude would [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025] occur in cash without receipts or acknowledgments. The allegation regarding the issuance of undated cheques is also baseless; neither the cheques were ever given to the respondent No.2 to the petitioner, nor were they encashed. It is also contended that the petitioner, way back on 14.03.2023, had reported a complaint regarding the loss and misplacement of several original pattas in respect of the multiple projects being undertaken by him, including the Patta of the plots in question in the impugned FIR. The petitioner has placed Annexure-5, showing the list of Pattas missing. It is also contended that the petitioner, under the notice issued by the Investigating Officer, had given a detailed representation along with the relevant documents, and the Investigating Authority, being convinced by the same, had even proposed a negative final report and reported that the matter pertains to a civil nature of dispute between the parties. Thereafter, the Investigating Authorities were influenced by External Authorities and reopened the matter for further investigation. In the guise of an additional investigation, they force the petitioner to settle and resolve the dispute. No fresh material is available to the Investigating Agency to proceed with further investigation against the petitioners. It is contended that the impugned FIR is frivolous, mala fide and a gross abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed.

4. It is also contended that there is no evidence on record that the petitioners intended to cheat and defraud the complainant. The continuous criminal proceedings against the petitioners are likely to become oppressive and may resemble a malicious prosecution, and on that ground, the FIR may be quashed. [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025]

5. It is also contended that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are purely civil and the complainant-respondent has the legal remedy available to approach the Civil Courts and invoke the arbitration. Any criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the complainant-respondent are bad in law and oppressive. The complainant-respondent had gone against the settled position of law while lodging the impugned FIR and attempted to implicate the petitioners in a false criminal proceeding with vile intentions. The Investigating Agency is also under a well-thought-out conspiracy with the complainant, threatening the petitioner to settle the extraneous demand. Therefore, the impugned FIR No.75/2024, registered at Police Station Kalwar, Jaipur City (West) for the offences under Sections 384, 387, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of IPC, may be quashed. Set-aside and all the consequential proceedings arising from the impugned FIR also deserve to be quashed.

6. A written reply has been filed along with the factual report on behalf of the state. The reply averred that the offences levelled against the petitioners after investigation are well proven. The petitioners, in connivance, were issued allotment letters for C-34, F-370, and F-369 in Parth City and obtained Rs.50 lakhs in cash.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2- complainant that from the bare perusal of the FIR, the offence under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners issued a provisional Patta to the complainant and his son, Mukul Gupta. It is also claimed that the complainant paid a sum of Rs 50 lakhs in cash and three undated cheques bearing Nos. 1017, 1018 and [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025]

1019. The investigation also substantiates that the petitioners provisionally allotted the complainant and his son Plot Nos.C-34, F370, F-369 and BS-2, Parth City, Kalwar Road. The investigation also reveals that the plots were sold to other persons thereafter. Thus, the prima facie offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC is against the petitioners.

9. Heard and perused the material available on record. The FIR was lodged on 21.10.2024, alleging commission of offence under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 384, 387 and 120B of the IPC. The said FIR was registered through a complaint from the concerned Court under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In the FIR, the complainant has alleged that the complainant and Mahipal Yadav were partners in M/s Kshitij Colonizers Private Limited. The M/s Kshitij Colonizers Private Limited was working on a group housing plan. The petitioner gave his consent to develop the group housing scheme, and for the same, an agreement dated

05.07.2011 was executed. The FIR also alleged that the petitioner No.1 did not proceed with the terms enshrined in the development deed dated 05.07.2011 and did not pay the amount to the complainant. The complaint also alleged that the 2011 petitioner No.1 became a partner to Firm-M/s Kshitij Colonizers and expelled the complainant and his partner, Mahipal Yadav, after hatching a conspiracy. The complaint also alleged that Sushila Gupta was made director of the said firm without the complainant's consent and his partner, Mahipal Yadav. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 did not pay the accounts due to the complainant and his partner, Mahipal Yadav. The petitioner No.1 also procured a loan of Rs.6 crores without intimating the complainant and his partners. It is [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025] also alleged that thereafter, petitioner No.1 assured the complainant that he would give him allotment letters in Parth City and allot three pattas issued in the name of the complainant’s son bearing No.BS-2. Petitioner No.1 also allotted plot numbers C-34 and F-370 to the complainant and procured Rs. 50 lakhs instead of the plots allotted. The FIR also alleged that three cheques were issued, and possession of the said plots was handed over to the complainant. The said plots bearing Nos.BS-2 and C-34 were sold by the complainant to Rambabu Yadav and Mohanlal Yadav. Thereafter, the complainant learned that the petitioner had issued allotment letters of the above plots to other persons.

10. The FIR's perusal shows that the alleged transaction occurred in 2016. The instant FIR is lodged on 21.02.2024, i.e. after a delay of almost 8 years. It is highly improbable that somebody would pay Rs. 50 lakhs in cash without getting any acknowledgement or receipt. The complainant in his complaint failed to show that when the 50 lakhs rupees were paid to the petitioner No.1, instead of the allotment of plot numbers C-34, F- 370 and BS-2 in Parth City. The complainant has also disclosed in the complaint that three cheques were issued. There is no evidence that the cheques issued in 2016 were ever honoured by the petitioner No.1 or his company. It is highly improbable that the person receiving cheques for the plots sold would not submit them to the Bank.

11. The complaint also alleges that the complainant and his partner, Mahipal Yadav, were illegally removed; that allegation is also without any substance. The petitioner has placed on record, Annexure-3, which bears the signature of the complainant, [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025] Rajkumar Gupta and his partner, Mahipal Yadav. It shows they tendered their resignation to Ms. Kshitij Colonizers Pvt, Limited in

2013. The complainant has also failed to show that petitioner No.1 procured a loan of 6 crores rupees without the consent of the complainant and his so-called partner, Mahipal Yadav.

12. After conducting an investigation, the factual report submitted along with the reply filed by the State also shows that the first Investigating Officer concluded that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is entirely civil. The Investigating Officer also found that the complainant failed to submit the original provisions letters alleged in the FIR for plot Nos.C-33, 34, F-370 BS-2 at Parth City. The Investigating office has also concluded that the complainant submitted a photocopy which bears the seal of Govind Mahima Realmart Pvt. Limited. The investigating officer also concluded that Shri Shankarlal Khandelwal, the director of Govind Kripa Build Mart, purchased the Parth City housing scheme. Govind Mahima Realmart developed the scheme, and the petitioner No.1 was the Mahima Realmart director. The investigating officer also collected the developed agreement between the Govind Kripa Build Mart and Mahima Real Mart. In the contract, it is clearly stated that in the Parth City Scheme, the plots could be allotted to the allottees only after getting the signatures of both partners. For the same, a public notice was also published in the newspaper. The first investigating officer also concluded that Satyanarayan Gupta, petitioner No.1, has also lodged an FIR that some allotment letters were missing, including Plot No. C-34, F-369, F-370 and BS-2. The investigation also reveals that the plots were not sold to anyone and are still in [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025] possession of the petitioner’s company. The first investigating officer, after a thorough investigation, did not find a commission of an offence against the petitioners.

13. The factual report also reveals that a negative final report was proposed and sent to the Higher Authority for approval. The factual report also shows that, thereafter, at the instance of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Jaipur (West), the matter was sent to another Investigating Officer to verify the first investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector Ramavtar. The second Investigating Officer again recorded the statement of complainant Rajkumar Gupta and the other witnesses Rambabu Yadav and Mukul Gupta under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. The factual report also shows that notice under Section 160 of the Cr.p.c. was sent to the petitioner No.1-Satyanarayan Gupta, and a second notice was served to the petitioner No.1, and the petitioner No.1 did not turn up. The factual report also shows that an offence under Section 420 & 409 of the IPC is made against petitioner No.1- Satyanarayan Gupta.

14. Thus, it is apparent from the factual report that the first investigating officer did not find any commission of offence as alleged against the petitioner No.1-Satyanarayn Gupta, and other accused and proposed a final negative report. The matter was again re-investigated, and only the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, which were already on record before the first investigating officer, were again recorded. Apart from the statement of the other witnesses, no other investigation has been conducted. [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025]

15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mariam Fasihuddin and Anr. Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., 2024 1 S.C.R. 623, held that the term “further investigation”, stipulated under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. obligates the officer In-charge of the concerned Police Station to obtain further evidence oral or documentary and only then forward a supplementary report regarding such evidence, the provision of submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the Investigating Agency.

16. In the present case, no new evidence came into existence that substantiates the conclusion drawn by the second Investigating Officer regarding the commission of the offence by petitioner No.1 under Sections 420 & 409 of the IPC. The first Investigating Officer thoroughly investigated, recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, and collected the documentary evidence, which revealed that the petitioners had never made such a transaction. The investigation also revealed that for the issuance of an allotment letter, the allotment letter needed to bear the signatures of both partners. The complainant failed to produce the original allotment letter before the first and second investigating officers. The first examining officer also concluded that there is no such record to show that the complainant paid 50 lakhs rupees cash to petitioner No.1, Satyanarayan Gupta. It is highly improbable that somebody would pay a considerable amount of Rs 50 lakhs without any acknowledgment or receipt. Further there is no evidence to the [2025:RJ-JP:20697] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-1791/2025] fact that the alleged cheques were handed over to the petitioner No.1 and they were ever produced before the concerned Bank by the petitioner No.1. There was no reason for the second Investigating Officer to entirely change the conclusion made by the first Investigating Officer without any further investigation. The complainant's statement and other witnesses were recorded before the first investigating officer. Therefore, the subsequent recording of the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. Does not fall within the ambit of “further investigation”.

17. The above narration of the facts clearly shows that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are nothing but an abuse of the process of criminal law, and the Police are in cahoots with the complainant. The second Investigating Officer has not given any cogent reason to reverse the findings presented by the first Investigating Officer, therefore, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by filing the F.I.R. No.75/2024, registered at Police Station Kalwar, Jaipur City (West) for the offences under Sections 384, 387, 406, 420, 467, 468 & 120B of IPC, is hereby quashed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86 6