Rajasthan High Court
Mohanlal Gupta S/O Sh. Muktilal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4619/2020
1. Mohanlal Gupta S/o Sh. Muktilal Gupta, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Ajeetgarh, Opp. Joshi Oil Mill, Tehsil
Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar, Raj.
2. Bajrang Lal Gupta S/o Muktilal Gupta, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Ajeetgarh, Opp. Joshi Oil Mill, Tehsil
Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Maliram S/o Lt. Sh. Kaluram Mali, R/o Opp. Joshi Oil Mill,
Tehsil Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar, Raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4303/2020
Gajanand Agarwal S/o Lt. Sh. Chaganlal, Aged About 65 Years,
R/o Chopra Shop, Udhampur, Jammu And Kashmir. At Present
R/o 132-B, Gangasagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Maliram S/o Kaluram, R/o Kasba Ajeetgarh, Shrimadhpur,
Distt. Sikar, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Ankul Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP
Mr. R. B. Sharma Ganthola, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 28.02.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 04.03.2022
(2 of 7) [CRLMP-4619/2020]
Both the petitions filed by the petitioners are arising out of
same FIR so both are decided simultaneously.
By these criminal misc. petitions, petitioners want to quash
the FIR bearing No.321/2019, registered at Police Station
Ajeetgarh, District Sikar for the Offence under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 196 and 120-B IPC.
Brief facts which led to the filing of these petitions are as
under:-
Complainant had filed one complaint against the petitioners
and other persons before Judicial Magistrate Srimadhopur, District
Sikar and same was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. and FIR was lodged against the petitioners and other
persons bearing No.321/2019. In complaint, complainant stated
that accused No.1 and 2 hatch a conspiracy with accused No.3
who was holding the post of Sarpanch at that time and created a
forge patta and encroached land of 7 feet and also stated that said
patta was issued in the name of Gaurishankar S/o Jainarayan
Sharma. After that, said patta was renewed in the name of
Chaganlal and Gajanand. Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta
had purchased this land knowingly that the said patta was forged.
Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had filed a civil suit against
the complainant by relying on forged patta and got injunction in
their favour. So, these persons be punished under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and
Bajrang Lal Gupta submitted that the petitioners are bona fide
purchaser of the land. At the time of purchase, they were minor
(3 of 7) [CRLMP-4619/2020]
and the said land was purchased by their grand father-Dev
Karanji. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
being a minor, petitioners were not able to enter into the valid
contract. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
the present FIR was lodged after inordinate delay of 39 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that petitioners
had filed a civil suit regarding permanent injunction in the year
2009 and temporary injunction was granted in favour of the
petitioners in 2018. After that, complainant had lodged the
present FIR in the year 2019 with mala fide intention. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submitted that complainant had
not challenged the patta issued in the year 1977. The said patta
was renewed in the name of Chaganlal and Gajanand in 1980.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
complainant had no locus standi to file the present FIR because as
per FIR, he stated that he had possession of disputed land but he
had not filed any titled documents regarding this land. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submitted that previously in this
matter, negative final report was filed. After that, complainant by
way of political pressure got investigation changed. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submitted that FSL report has
received in this case in which signatures on patta are similar to
the signature of Babu Lal Kumawat. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also submitted that the civil suit is pending between
the parties. Genuineness of the patta is to be determined by the
civil court. So, the present FIR against the petitioners be quashed.
(4 of 7) [CRLMP-4619/2020]
Learned counsel for the petitioner Gajanand has supported
the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners
Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta and submitted that
disputed land was purchased by his father in the year 1980.
Petitioner is living in Udhampur more than 30 years. Father of the
petitioner had sold the said land to the grand father of the
petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no evidence
that the said patta is forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submitted that as per the panchayat record of the disputed
patta is not available so this can not be inferred that said patta is
forged. Civil suit is pending between the parties. So, FIR against
the petitioner be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon
the following judgments: (1) Md Ibrahhim & Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1695/2009 decided on
04.09.2009; (2) Chhuttan Lal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamli Devi &
Ors. in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1903/2009; (3)
Ganesh Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.2654/2011 decided on 19.03.2012; (4)
Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. in
Criminal Appeals Nos.251-252 of 2020 decided on
10.02.2020 and (5) Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
in Criminal Appeal No.933/2021 decided on 02.09.2021.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners and submitted that petitioners and
(5 of 7) [CRLMP-4619/2020]
other persons hatched a conspiracy in creating forged patta.
Deceased Chaganlal and Gajanand had created forged patta with
connivance the then Sarpanch Babu Lal Kumawat and petitioners
Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had purchased disputed
land by knowingly that the said patta was forged. They further
submitted that respondent had sought record of said patta but
Gram Panchayat in its letter clearly stated that record of the said
pattas are not available in the Gram Panchayat office. So, it clearly
shows that petitioners had created the forged patta. They further
submitted that petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta
knew that the said patta was forged and they had filed the civil
suit against the respondent and procure injunction by submitting
forged patta before the trial court. They further submitted that
FSL report also reveals that the then Sarpanch Babu Lal Kumawat
has deliberately did signature on forged patta. They further
submitted that disputed land was related to Noordin. He was
tenant on disputed land. So, the patta could not be issued on
15.01.1977. They further submitted that after investigation,
Investigating Agency has found proved offence under Sections
420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC against the accused Gajanand and
offence under Sections 420, 471, 120-B IPC against Mohanlal
Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta and offence under Sections 420,
467, 468, 177, 120-B IPC against the Babu Lal Kumawat. Charge-
sheet is ready against the petitioners. So, petitions be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel for the respondent.
(6 of 7) [CRLMP-4619/2020]
It is admitted position that the disputed land does not belong
to the complainant. Complainant in his report clearly stated that
he had possession over the land but he had not filed any titled
documents regarding said land. Complainant had not challenged
the patta dated 15.01.1977. A perusal of record reveals that patta
was issued in the name of Gaurishankar on 15.01.1977 and the
said land was purchased by Chaganlal and Gajanand and patta
was renewed in their favour. After that, grand father of Mohanlal
Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had purchased the said land on the
name of their grand children. Civil suit was filed by the petitioners
against the complainant in 2009 by relying of said patta.
Complainant knew authenticity of the patta at the time of filing of
the civil suit but when trial court had granted the temporary
injunction in favour of the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang
Lal Gupta in the year 2018, after that, complainant had filed the
present FIR with mala fide intention. Investigating Officer also had
not fairly investigated the matter. As per FSL report, signatures
pertains on patta are similar to signature of Babu Lal Kumawat.
So, it can not be inferred that the said patta is forged.
Investigation agency had not collected any evidence from Gram
Panchayat that above mentioned patta was forged one. So, in my
considered opinion continuance of proceedings against the
petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process so the present
misc. petitions deserve to be allowed and proceedings of FIR
bearing No.321/2019, registered at Police Station Ajeetgarh,
District Sikar and all subsequent investigation pursuant thereto to
the extent of the qua petitioners are hereby quashed.
(7 of 7) [CRLMP-4619/2020]
With the aforesaid, these criminal misc. petitions stand
allowed.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /21-22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
