Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Prakash Bidyasar And Ors vs State And Anr on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 5) [CRLMP-2897/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2897/2017
1. Prem Prakash Bidyasar S/o Gyanendra Singh
2. Smt. Pushpa Bidyasar W/o Prem Prakash Bidyasar, All By
Caste Jat, R/o Village Ransisar, Tehsil Deedwana District
Nagaur.
3. Shiv Lal S/o Kurda Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Near
Tagore Circle, Nohar, District Hanumangarh Raj., At
Present Residing At B-2/444, Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. Pratap Ram S/o Ladu Ram Anwala, By Caste Jat, R/o Area
Road, Anwala Ki Dhani, Borawar, P.s. Makrana, Nagaur
Raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3188/2019
Kishore Kumar Soni S/o Mangi Lal Soni, Aged About 60 Years,
776, Mohalla Kumharo Ka, Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Srimadhopur,
District Sikar (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pratap Ram S/o Ladu Ram Anwala, B/c Jat, R/o Area
Road, Anwala Ki Dhani, Borawar, Ps Makrana, Nagaur
(Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Choudhary
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
Mr. GR Punia Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Rajendra Prasad
Mr. Vinod Kumar (RPS), CO Nagaur
(Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 11:06:19 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2897/2017]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
15/09/2022
The petitioners have preferred these misc. petition claiming
the following reliefs:-
"In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2897/2017
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
misc. petition may kindly be allowed and C.R. Case
(First Information Report) No.103/2017, pending
investigation at Police Station Makrana (Nagaur) for
offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
& 120-B of IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside.
In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3188/2019
It is therefore most humbly prayed that this criminal
misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the
impugned FIR bearing no.103/2017 registered at P.S.
Makrana, District Nagaur may kindly be quashed and
set aside."
The bone of contention in the present matter is the
agricultural land situated at Khasra No.95, Makrana, which was
belonging to the scheduled caste person-Madanlal, which was said
to have been sold further subsequently to Shiv Lal, Hanuta Ram
and Raju Ram. The said purchasers Shiv Lal, Hanuta Ram and
Raju Ram gave their consent to the Assistant Mining Engineer,
Makrana to sanction a mining lease of said land in favour of one
Gyanendra Singh, who is said to be the father of the petitioner
no.1.
Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the
transaction which happened in year 1980 is being now sought to
be opened by respondent no.2, who himself was a partner in the
(Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 11:06:19 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2897/2017]
mining lease, because there is a dispute in the business
partnership.
Learned counsels for the petitioners have drawn attention of
this Court towards the FIR, in which, the complete narration has
been made and the main allegation is that Shiv Lal, Hanuta Ram
and Raju Ram are not the actual persons, who have made the
actual purchase is the main issue, which has wrongly been raised
here, because no actual interrogation has been made from the
three concerned persons.
Learned counsels for the petitioners have also shown this
Court the order passed by the revenue court in appeal no.38/2017
on 18.05.2018, in which, the appellants Shiv Lal, Hanuta Ram and
Raju Ram contested the land in question and the matter was
remanded back by the said court to the Tehsildar for passing the
fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned and pass appropriate orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the order
passed by the learned Tehsildar, Makrana dated 18.01.2019, which
was passed in pursuance of the order dated 18.05.2018, in which,
the learned Tehsildar, Makrana, after due application of mind, has
passed an order that the Khatedari in favour of Shiv Lal, Hanuta
Ram and Raju Ram shall remain to continue.
Learned counsels for the petitioners have also drawn
attention of this Court towards the piece of land, which was
purchased by Shiv Lal, Hanuta Ram and Raju Ram by a registered
sale-deed has been accepted by the revenue authority and ought
not to be challenged in a criminal proceedings.
Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that
the mining lease was sanctioned in accordance with law in favour
(Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 11:06:19 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2897/2017]
of Gyanendra Singh and thus, the revenue authority was rightly
seized of the matter and once the revenue authority and Tehsildar,
Makrana in consonance with law have passed an order of
maintaining the khatedari, then the FIR would not lie.
The Investigating Officer present in person submits that the
main issue is not the sale of property in question, but the very
existence of the three purchasers i.e. Shiv Lal, Hanuta Ram and
Raju Ram is disputed. The Investigating Officer further submits
that after thorough investigation, the original persons, who have
supposed to have bought the land belonging to scheduled caste
persons, are not in existence and prima-facie the investigation
points out that in the garb of such persons, who are not in
existence, a shadow persons were created and transfer, which was
otherwise illegal in the name of scheduled caste person, was
projected as legal by creating such shadow persons.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. GR Punia assisted by Mr.
Rajendra Prasad appearing on behalf of the complainant reiterated
the contention made by Investigating Officer.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the scope of
challenging the FIR is very limited, as in the precedent law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors.,1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 335, the Court ought to go into the merits of the FIR
only if on the face of record, no offence has been made out.
This Court, on consideration of the submissions made and on
examination of the record, is of the opinion that in case the
persons i.e. Shiv Lal, Hanuta Ram and Raju Ram are fake persons
then the whole case travels to trannsferring of property by the
said fake persons from Madan Lal, who was belonging to
(Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 11:06:19 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2897/2017]
scheduled caste, and in the garb of creating such fake/shadow
persons, the property has actually been passed on to the some
unauthorized persons.
On a bare reading of the FIR and the order passed by the
learned Court below, no cause of interference is made out in the
present petitions, thus, the same are accordingly dismissed. All
pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
33-34-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
