Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Baljeet Kaur vs State on 24 November, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 3) [CRLMP-2089/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2089/2019
1. Baljeet Kaur W/o Late Shri Jagdev Singh, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 1, Dhani Sikhan, Nohar,
District Hanumangarh.
2. Kala Singh S/o Late Shri Jagdev Singh, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 1, Dhani Sikhan, Nohar, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
3. Gora Singh S/o Late Shri Jagdev Singh, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 1, Dhani Sikhan, Nohar, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Kashi Ram, Resident Of Village
Bhangarh, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Trivedi, PP
Mr. Rakesh Matoria, for the
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment / Order
24/11/2021
1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition seeking
quashing of FIR No.137/2019, registered at Police Station Nohar
District Hanumangarh for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B &
504 of IPC.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that FIR
does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Similar type
of FIR was registered against the petitioners, in which police has
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2089/2019]
submitted negative final report. It is also contended that
complainant has also filed a civil suit for specific performance.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have
opposed the criminal misc. Petition. It is contended by counsel for
the complainant that petitioners had entered into an agreement of
sale of his property. Subsequently they connived with each other
and filed a partition suit, in which they obtained a compromise
decree to deprive the complainant of their rights on the property.
It is also contended that in similar type of FIR, investigation is
pending with the police.
4. I have considered the contentions and perused the FIR.
5. From bare perusal of the FIR, FIR discloses commission of a
cognizable offence. The specific allegation against the petitioner is
of entering into an agreement of sale, taking money, thereby
depriving the complainant of his right to the property and further,
filing a suit for partition in which they obtained a compromise
decree.
6. Apex Court in "Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors. 2018 (3) SCC Page 106." has held that the
High Court at this stage could not appreciate the evidence nor
could draw its own inferences and such job is vested with the
Investigating Authority. The Apex Court further observed that if
the FIR disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence,
High Court should stay its hand and allow the investigating
machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in
accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2089/2019]
7. Apex Court in M/s Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.330/2021
decided by the Apex Court on 13.04.2021 has held that when a
prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the
court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only
has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to
consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable
offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. Apex Court
has further observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
8. Since the present FIR discloses commission of a cognizable
offence, this Court deems it proper to direct the Investigating
Agency to investigate the allegations in the FIR.
9. No ground is made out for entertaining the present misc.
petition seeking quashing of FIR and the same is accordingly,
dismissed.
10. Stay application stands disposed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
37-praveen/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
