Smt Koyali And Anr vs State And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2386 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2220/2017

1. Smt. Koyali W/o Sh. Bheraram, By Caste Jat R/o Thoriyo Ki Dhani Village Pal, District Jodhpur.

2. Shri Pukhraj S/o Sh. Premaram, By Caste Jat, R/o Narnadi, Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Shri Sunilnath Modi S/o Sumernath Modi, R/o 4 P 35, Kbhb, Jodhpur Kudi Bhagtasni, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Moti Singh

For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
                                Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP

                                Mr. R.S. Bhati for respondent No.2



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                     Order

10/02/2022

This criminal misc. petition under 482 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing FIR

No.277/2016 lodged at Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur

East for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and

120-B IPC.

The impugned FIR is filed by the complainant-respondent

No.2 with the allegations that he along with some other persons

had entered into an agreement with the petitioners to the effect

that the petitioners will not claim any right over the land of Khasra

(2 of 6) [CRLMP-2220/2017]

Nos.83 and 104 of village Chopasani Jagir, Distt. Jodhpur. It is

alleged that the said agreement was executed on 27.09.2000 and

in lieu of the agreement, petitioner - Smt. Koyali had received

Rs.3,50,000/-. It is further alleged that several proceedings in

relation to the said land of Khasra Nos.83 and 104 are pending

before the revenue courts and in all those proceedings, petitioner

- Smt. Koyali has filed applications to the effect that she does not

have any right over the land of Khasra Nos.83 and 104 and only

the complainant and other persons, who are party to the said

agreement have right over the land in question. It is stated that

on the basis of the said agreement executed by petitioner -

Smt. Koyali in favour of complainant and other persons, several

orders have been passed in their favour by the revenue courts. It

is further alleged that despite execution of the agreement by

petitioner - Smt. Koyali, she has preferred an appeal

No.1450/2005 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short 'the

Board of Revenue') claiming khatedari rights over the land of

Khasra Nos.83 and 104 along with Khasra No.108 of village

Chopasani Jagir, Distt. It is also alleged in the FIR that petitioner -

Smt. Koyali has committed offence of cheating with the

complainant and other persons by filing appeal before the Board of

Revenue claiming khatedari rights of Khasra Nos.83 and 104. It is

also alleged that as per the agreement executed by petitioner -

Smt. Koyali, she does not have any khatedari rights over the land

of Khasra Nos.83 and 104 and despite that she has claimed right

over the said land by filing appeal before the Board of Revenue, as

such, she has committed offence of cheating with the complainant

and others because she has already received Rs.3,50,000/- while

relinquishing her claim over the land of Khasra Nos.83 and 104.

                                      (3 of 6)                     [CRLMP-2220/2017]



     On   registration    of     the     said     FIR,      the   police   started

investigation into the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from

a bare reading of the impugned FIR, no case is made out against

the petitioners for the offences alleged in the impugned FIR.

Learned counsel has also submitted that as a matter of fact, on

the basis of the said agreement, the Revenue Appellate Authority,

Jodhpur (for short 'the RAA') in an appeal preferred on behalf of

the petitioners has already held that petitioner - Smt. Koyali has

no right and interest over the land of Khasra Nos.83 and 104. It is

also submitted that in the agreement dated 27.09.2000, it is

specifically mentioned that as and when petitioner - Smt. Koyali

will get khatedari rights of the land of Khasra Nos.83 and 104, she

will transfer the same in favour of the complainant and others.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that

petitioner - Smt. Koyali never got khatedari rights in her favour till

the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority.

It is also submitted that one Girdhari Ram has challenged the

order of the Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of

Revenue claiming his right and interest over the land of Khasra

Nos.83, 104 and 108 and the petitioners has preferred an appeal

before the Board of Revenue claiming their right and title only

over the land of Khasra No.108 and did not claim any right or title

in respect of land of Khasra Nos.83 and 104. Learned counsel for

the petitioners has, therefore, submitted that the Board of

Revenue vide judgment dated 27.08.2010 has declared the

petitioners as khatedars of Khasra Nos.83 and 104 along with the

land of Khasra No.108, however, the said judgment of the Board

of Revenue has already been set aside by this Court in a writ

(4 of 6) [CRLMP-2220/2017]

petition preferred on behalf of the khatedars of the land in

question and, as such, there was no occasion for petitioner -

Smt. Koyali to execute the sale-deed in favour of the complainant

and other persons. It is, thus, prayed that in view of the above

facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that prima

facie offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-A IPC is made out

against the petitioners, as such, the impugned FIR is liable to be

quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for

the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by

learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that as a

matter of fact, despite execution of agreement by petitioner -

Smt. Koyali in favour of the complainant and others, she had

preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue claiming her

khatedari rights over the land of Khasra Nos.83 and 104, whereas

she has already relinquished all her rights of the said land by

executing the agreement dated 27.09.2000 after receiving an

amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the complainant,

thus, submitted that from a bare reading of the impugned FIR,

case for commission of offence is made out against the

petitioners, hence, the impugned FIR may not be quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned FIR.

In the impugned FIR, the sum and substance of the

allegations is that petitioner - Smt. Koyali with the aid of another

person had executed an agreement in favour of the complainant

and others while relinquishing all her khatedari rights of the land

of Khasra Nos.83 and 104 and in lieu of that agreement, she has

(5 of 6) [CRLMP-2220/2017]

received Rs.3,50,000/-. It is further alleged that despite execution

of the said agreement, petitioner - Smt. Koyali has preferred an

appeal before the Board of Revenue without impleading the

complainant and others as party, who were party to the said

agreement. It is also submitted that by claiming khatedari rights

before the Board of Revenue of Khasra Nos.83 and 104; despite

execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs.3,50,000/-, the

petitioners have committed offence of cheating and

misappropriation of amount received by them.

This Court is of the opinion that from a bare reading of the

contents of the impugned FIR, commission of offence is made out

against the petitioners.

So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners

that petitioner - Smt. Koyali has not claimed any khatedari right

of Khasra Nos.83 and 104 before the Board of Revenue and in

view of the fact that though the Board of Revenue has granted

khatedari rights to petitioner - Smt. Koyali of Khasra Nos.83 and

104, but as the said judgment of the Board of Revenue has

already been set aside in the writ petition filed before this Court,

she is not able to transfer her khatedari rights of Khasra Nos.83

and 104 in favour of the complainant and others, who are party to

the said agreement is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that

these facts are to be taken into consideration by the Investigating

Officer and the so-called defence of the petitioners cannot be

taken into consideration while examining the question of quashing

of FIR as it is well settled that at the time of considering a case for

quashing of FIR, the Court should not go into the truthfulness of

the allegations levelled in the complaint.

(6 of 6) [CRLMP-2220/2017]

Resultantly, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc.

petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, the petitioners are at liberty to move an

appropriate representation along with the supportive documents

before the Investigating Officer.

If any such representation is filed by the petitioners along

with supportive documents, it is expected that the Investigating

Officer shall consider the same objectively and thereafter proceed

further in accordance with law.

The stay petition is also dismissed.

Since the FIR in question is of the year 2016, the

Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation

expeditiously.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 147-pratibha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)