Nihal Singh S/O Shri Tituriya vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5781 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3863/2022

1.      Nihal Singh S/o Shri Tituriya, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
        Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District
        Karauli Rajastan.
2.      Bharat Ram S/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
        Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District
        Karauli Rajastan.
3.      Shriram S/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
        Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District
        Karauli Rajastan.
4.      Jayjayram S/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
        Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District
        Karauli Rajastan.
5.      Rona Devi W/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
        Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District
        Karauli Rajastan.
6.      Rekha Devi W/o Bharatlal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
        Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District
        Karauli Rajastan.
7.      Laxmi Devi W/o Shriram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
        Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District
        Karauli Rajastan.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.      Shri Devi Singh S/o Shri Ramdhan, Aged About 35 Years,
        R/o Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District
        Karauli.
                                                                ----Respondents

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3866/2022

1. Nihal Singh S/o Shri Tituriya, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District Karauli Rajastan.

2. Bharat Ram S/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District

(2 of 6) [CRLMP-3863/2022]

Karauli Rajastan.

3. Shriram S/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District Karauli Rajastan.

4. Jayjayram S/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District Karauli Rajastan.

5. Rona Devi W/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District Karauli Rajastan.

6. Rekha Devi W/o Bharatlal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District Karauli Rajastan.

7. Laxmi Devi W/o Shriram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District Karauli Rajastan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Shri Devi Singh S/o Shri Ramdhan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bai Jatta Ka Pura Police Station Surouth District Karauli.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
                               Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, Dy.G.C.



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

                                    Order

Judgment reserved on                   :               18/08/2022
Date of Pronouncement                  :               24/08/2022

1. The same set of petitioners have challenged two FIRs in

these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C lodged by the same

respondent No.2. The first FIR No. 77/2022 dated 22.02.2022

registered with Surouth Police Station in the District of Karauli for

(3 of 6) [CRLMP-3863/2022]

offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 504, 506, 3 (1) (r), 3(1)

(S), 3 (2) (va) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2015) is under challenge in

Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3863/2022 and FIR No. 87/2022

registered with same Police Station on 27.2.2022 for offence

under Section 379 IPC and under Section 3(1) (g), 3 (1) (r), 3(1)

(s), 3 (2) (va) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2015) in Cr. Misc. Petition No.

3866/2022. Both the cases involve identical facts and grounds of

challenge, hence are decided by this common order.

2. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that three full brothers i.e. (i) Nihal Singh

(petitioner No.1) (ii) Hukum Singh and (iii) Charan Singh all sons

of Tituriya are under civil litigation for plot No. 674 (referred in the

FIR) and other family plots. Other petitioners are wife, sons and

wife of sons of petitioner No.1 Nihar Singh. Learned counsel

contends that Hukum Singh filed FIR No. 75/2022 against the

petitioners and the police submitted negative report in the said

FIR after investigation of the case and just to pressurize in the

civil litigation, Hukum Singh has set up the informant of this case

who is a member of Scheduled Caste. Both the FIRs relate to

incident which took place on plot No. 674. Both the FIRs are

result of malicious prosecution to wreak vengeance.

3. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the

private respondents contends that the respondent informant had

sustained injuries at the time of occurrence which would be

evident from the injury report produced in the case, hence only for

civil litigation amongest the brothers, the criminal prosecution

should not be quashed. Learned counsel contends that the law is

(4 of 6) [CRLMP-3863/2022]

well settled that if ingredients of criminal offence are disclosed

only for civil dispute, the FIR could not be quashed.

4. Before going through the FIRs, it would be relevant to look

into the background of the FIRs. Hukum Singh, one of the full

brothers of petitioner No.1 brought civil suit No. 19/2019 before

learned Additional Civil Judge No.1, Hindaun City against his two

brothers including petitioner No.1. In para IV of the plaint,

Hukum Singh specifically pleaded that plot No. 674, area 0.74

hectare and other plots were purchased by the joint family of

Hukum Singh and petitioner No.1, from joint family income. Copy

of the plaint is at Annexure-5. In view of the aforesaid admission,

there is unity of title and possession between Hukum Singh and

petitioner No.1, therefore, it cannot be argued that petitioner No.1

and his family members were strangers or trespassers on plot

No.674.

5. The revenue authorities, in a mutation proceedings recorded,

plot No. 674 area 0.74 hectares in the name of Hukum Singh and

petitioner No.1 as joint tenant. Hukum Singh challenged the said

order in appeal No. 51/2021 before the appellate authority stating

therein that after intervention of the well-wishers and villagers,

Hukum Singh executed a registered deed of gift in favour of

petitioner No.1 on 11.6.2014 wherein western portion measuring

0.47 hectare was allotted to the petitioner No.1 and eastern 0.27

hectares remained with Hukum Singh, therefore, mutation order

was wrong. The appellate authority set aside the mutation order

dated 20.6.2014 passed in Case No. 533/2014 by its order dated

3.11.2021. Thereafter petitioner No.1 challenged the order of the

appellate authority in Revision Petition No. 117/2021 which is still

(5 of 6) [CRLMP-3863/2022]

pending consideration and order dated 3.11.2021 of the appellate

court was stayed by the revisional court on 15.11.2021.

6. In FIR No. 77/2022, respondent No.2 stated that since last 6

to 7 years, respondent No.2 is cultivating as Bataidar of Hukum

Singh on eastern 0.27 hectare of Plot No. 674. It is further stated

that for the said plot, the petitioners and Hukum Singh are under

different litigations before different forums. On 21.2.2022 at 10.00

AM, the complainant along with his family members and Hukum

Singh was on the said plot to cut the crop. While they were

cutting the crop, the petitioners armed with Lathi etc. came and

started abusing complainant taking his caste name and the

petitioners were challenging how the informant and others have

come to cut the crops, petitioners started committing assault as

well. In FIR No. 87/2022 it is added that on 27.2.2022, the

informant and others were carrying the crops from Plot No. 674

which was protested by the petitioners and this time also,

assailants abused by caste name and committed assault and theft

of crops.

6. The injury report produced by the complainant respondent

shows that the Doctor had found simple injuries caused by hard

and blunt substance.

7. From the material available on record, it is evident that the

petitioners had unity of title and possession along with other co-

sharers on plot No. 674. The revenue authorities after physical

verification found possession of the petitioner No.1 and others that

is why petitioner No.1 along with his co-sharer were jointly

recorded on plot No. 674. Even Hukum Singh had admitted that

plot No. 674 was purchased by the joint family from joint family

fund.

(6 of 6) [CRLMP-3863/2022]

8. The material disclosed in the FIR does not show that the

alleged occurrence was committed for the reason that the

respondent/informant was a member of scheduled caste rather it

was allegedly committed while disturbing possession of the

petitioners over plot No. 674. The respondent informant was

conscious and aware of the fact that plot No. 674 is under dispute

amongest co-sharers. His claim to be a Batiaidar is not

substantiated by any tangible material on record.

9. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the

petitioners were trespassers on plot No. 674 as admittedly,

petitioner No.1 was in joint possession of plot No.674 which was

purchased from joint family fund, rather informant appears to be

set up by Hukum Singh as cultivator of the land to pressurize the

petitioners to succumb to the terms and conditions of Hukum

Singh in pending civil litigation. Therefore, this Court has no

hesitation to hold that both these FIRs suffer from malicious

prosecution to wreak vengeance and to settle the score of civil

dispute by giving it colour of criminal litigation.

10. In the result, both the impugned FIRs are hereby quashed

and these petitions are allowed.

11. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove are

for the purpose of deciding these petitions only and shall not

prejudice the rights of the parties in civil litigation.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

/bm gandhi 71,72

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)