Rajasthan High Court
Sharwan Singh S/O Sh. Kishan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3233/2022
1. Sharwan Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, R/o Ladera, Police
Station Dudu, District Jaipur.
2. Badri Narayan Singh S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh, R/o Village
Ladera, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
2. Dev Karan S/o Manguram, R/o Magra, Gegal, Ajmer
(Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Ratnawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta with Ms. Neha
Goyal
Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment reserved on : 24/08/2022
Date of Pronouncement : 31/08/2022
1. The petitioners have sought for quashing of FIR No.
132/2022 registered with Dudu Police Station for offences under
Sections 143, 323, 341, 447 and 504 IPC as well as under
Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), 3(1) (f) and Section 3(2) (VA) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as the `Act of 1989').
2. The challenge is on the ground that to settle a pure civil
dispute just to make pressure on the petitioners, false and
concocted FIR has been lodged which suffers from malice of
respondent No.2.
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-3233/2022]
3. The case of the petitioners is that Plot No.1 under Khata No.
52 Khasra No. 1 area 3.79 hectare in village Killa Tehsil Dudu
District Jaipur was allotted to one Bhoma S/o Dhalu as Bhoma was
a landless farmer long long ago. Later on, Bhoma filed an
application for reallotment of another plot bearing Kashra No.
1698 in place of plot No. 1 as plot No. 1 was non-fertile/ non-
cultivable. The application of Bhoma dated 24.10.1962 was
allowed by the Tehsildar, a copy of the order is at Annexure-2.
Thereafter the petitioners on 11.7.1975 filed an application for
allotment of plot No.1 above area 5 bighas. On the prayer of the
petitioners, the land was allotted to the petitioners vide letter at
Annexure-4 and the land was recorded as gair Khatedar land on
the mutation file on 3.3.1976. From the date of allotment, the
petitioners are in possession of the said land. After the death of
Bhoma his sons namely Bhanwar Lal and Rameshwar started
putting claim on plot No.1. The petitioners filed civil suit No.
95/2014 for permanent injunction and declaration of khatedari
rights against sons of Bhoma. By an order of interim injunction
dated 3.7.2014, the Court directed that the parties shall not
alienate or sale out the suit property. A copy of the order dated
3.7.2014 is at Annexure-6. Thereafter, the petitioners by filing an
application informed to the Tehsildar, Dudu regarding order of the
Court dated 3.7.2014. Learned SDO by order dated 2.7.2016
directed for maintaining status quo with regard to the property in
pursuance of the order of the civil Court dated 3.7.2014. The SDO
summoned a report from local Police Station, Dudu who submitted
report of possession of the petitioners on the suit property. The
interim order dated 3.7.2014 was challenged by the defendant of
the suit in an appeal before the revenue appellate authority which
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-3233/2022]
was dismissed on 24.5.2019, copy of the dismissal order is at
Annexure-10, thereafter the defendants of the suit hatched
conspiracy with local Tehsildar and removed from the note of the
revenue records the order dated 3.7.2014 and got a registered
sale deed executed in favour of informant Dev Karan on
10.4.2019. Evidently, Dev Karan had purchased a litigation and
the transferor had acted with malice and malafide knowing well
that the Court had restrained the parties from transferring the suit
property.
4. In the aforesaid background, the FIR was lodged stating that
respondent No.2 is in possession of plot No.1 area 3.79 hectare
from the year 2019 and is cultivating the land. On 10.3.2022,
when the informant went to see his field, he noticed that two
tractors were ploughing the field. When the complainant asked not
to plough the field, the petitioners Sharwan Singh and others
started hurling abuses on the informant by taking his caste name.
The accused persons threatened the informant to be crushed
within the tractors. There is allegation of scuffle and assault also.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the
admitted background of the FIR for his submission that in fact,
there is land dispute between the parties wherein the petitioners
have got bonafide claim. The alleged occurrence did not take
place for the reason that respondent No.2 was a member of
Scheduled Caste rather for dispute between the parties over the
plot which was the subject matter of the civil dispute on the date
of FIR.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the law is
well settled that when FIR discloses commission of cognizable
offence, it should not be quashed at the threshold only for the
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-3233/2022]
reason of filing dispute between the parties. Respondent No.2 had
purchased the land from a khatedar tenant who was in possession
of the land.
7. On consideration of material on record, it is evident that a
civil dispute was pending for FIR referred plot before the
competent court for declaration of khatedari rights and for
permanent injunction. The court had ordered the parties to the
suit not to transfer the suit property. Inspite of that the
defendants of the suit transferred the property in favour of
complainant, through registered sale deed, therefore, evidently,
the complainant purchased the litigation. The occurrence dated
10.3.2022 allegedly took place when the petitioners were
ploughing the said plot and the complainant obstructed. If the
complainant would not have obstructed and gone to the disputed
property, there was no reason that the petitioners would have
been committing the offences alleged, therefore, the offence was
committed for a property dispute between the parties and the
dispute was purchased by the complainant during pendency of a
civil dispute before the competent Court.
8. In the case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4030, the case was against
conviction under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as well as
for offence under Section 302 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
noticed that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was
committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged
to the scheduled caste, therefore, conviction under the provisions
of Act of 1989 was not sustainable and was set aside.
9. In the case on hand, the alleged occurrence did not take
place for the reason that complainant respondent No.2 was a
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-3233/2022]
member of the Scheduled Caste rather for dispute over property
which was already going on before the competent court and there
was report in favour of petitioners' possession. The FIR, evidently
suffers from ulterior motive to put under pressure to compel the
petitioners to succumb to the civil dispute.
10. In the aforesaid background, allowing continuance of the
impugned FIR would lead to failure of justice, hence the impugned
FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out of said FIR stands
hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/76
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
