CRLMA/41/2023 of RAM NARAYAN SON OF LATE SHARVAN LAL, Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 19 August 2026

Order

19/08/2026

1. On the basis of deposition of ₹5,50,000/- in pursuant to order dated 19.07.2018 in SB CRLMP No.3929/2018, the instant application is filed for refund (return) of money.

2. Both the parties are claiming the amount which has been deposited, pursuant to order dated 19.07.2018.

3. After considering misc. petition No.3929/2018 on merits on 12.05.2022, this Court has allowed the petition and quashed

(2 of 5) [CRLMA-41/2023] FIR No.132/2018 registered at P.S. Bassi, Jaipur City (East) under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. In final order dated 12.05.2022, nowhere it has been mentioned that how the money deposited pursuant to interim order dated 19.07.2018 be refunded.

4. Admittedly complainant Ramjilal, who is brother of accused Ramnarayan and Omprakash has lodged FIR on the ground of fraud, cheating and misappropriation. The facts narrated in both the orders indicated Late Shri Shravan Lal, survived by his widow, daughter and three sons. The dispute arose when mother and sister (wife and daughter of late Shri Shravan Lal) has relinquished their share in favour of both the petitioners. The parties have negotiated the matter and as per facts they entered into compromise though same has already been contended by learned counsel for petitioners that compromise was executed under pressure.

5. A Co-ordinate Bench on 19.07.2018 noticing the fact has observed that the dispute is only regard to payment of ₹5.50 lacs, hence directed the petitioners to deposit the said amount in the Registry. The admission and contention of the counsel for petitioners have been noted ad verbatim by a Co- ordinate Bench in following manner: "At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are ready and willing to return the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- which they had received in pursuance of the compromise by promising that they shall transfer the land in favour of the complainant."

(3 of 5) [CRLMA-41/2023]

6. Pursuant to offer made by learned counsel for petitioners this Court has passed following order: Let the petitioners, in consonance with statement made by counsel, to show their bonafide, deposit Rs.5,50,000/- in the office of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within one week from today. The said amount shall be kept by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in FDR with a nationalized Bank till decision of the case. Upon deposit of the above said amount, as per statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, issue notice to respondents for 26.09.2018. Meanwhile, further proceedings arising out of impugned FIR shall remain stayed. It is made explicit clear that notices shall be issued and order of stay shall operate only if the petitioners within one week deposit the amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, as stated by their counsel, in the office of Deputy Registrar (Judicial).

7. In the order it is made it clear that only on the contentions of the petitioners and with endeavour of petitioners to refund ₹5.50 lacs by depositing same in the Registry the order was passed by this Court. Later another Co-ordinate Bench considering the FIR and contention of the counsel for the parties have noticed and observed as under:

3. In the FIR, it is stated that petitioners and complainant No.2 are full brothers. They have 1/3rd share in the agricultural as well as other joint properties left by their father. However, the Tehsildar

(4 of 5) [CRLMA-41/2023] wrongly opened mutation in favour of mother and sister, who were not entitled for any share under Hindu Succession Act as Hindu Succession Act was not applicable. A compromise was arrived between the parties on 20.12.2017 in which it was agreed that excess land would be partitioned between the parties. An Agreement was entered between the parties but the petitioners did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Learned

counsel

for petitioners has stated that the matter is of civil dispute. The complainant earlier lodged an FIR No.491/2017, wherein, the complainant has admitted that he has only 1/5th share in the property, which by necessary implications is admission of share of the mother as well as of the sister. Moreover, mother and sister have executed a registered relinquished deed in favour of the petitioners. Appeals are pending at the hands of the parties against the order of the Revenue Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however submits that intention of the parties is to be looked into for considering whether a case of cheating and criminal misappropriation is made out or not.

6. Since the written reply is not there, this Court goes by averments of the petitioners and on bare perusal of the FIR and other material available on the record a case of pure civil dispute is made out. Therefore, continuance of the criminal

(5 of 5) [CRLMA-41/2023] proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the law.

7. Accordingly, impugned FIR No. 132/2018 and criminal proceedings are quashed and the petition is allowed.

8. A co-ordinate Bench while passing final order on 12.05.2022 has not gone into the dispute about deposition of ₹5.50 lac but while passing the interim order the concession was recorded, which has never been challenged, and same amounts to an admission of the petitioners and on the basis of admission, a Co-ordinate Bench has directed deposition of said money.

9. Considering the order and the fact that interim order which has merged into the final order and final order wherein there is not a single word about deposition of amount then the order dated 19.07.2018 will govern the release of said amount.

10. In view of aforesaid, the complainant is entitled for ₹5.50 lacs along with interest accrued till date. Thus the application of non-petitioner No.2 complainant is allowed and of petitioners is dismissed. The office is directed to return and release money in favour of non-petitioner No.2 complainant, provided complainant submits his bank account details. The money be released along with interest accrued till date.

11. Misc. application stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 8/PREETI VALECHA