Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pankaj vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5694/2021
Pankaj S/o Shri Chananmal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No.
16, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ramkumar S/o Shri Tikuram, B/c Regar, R/o Ward No. 16,
Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. K.L. Thakur
For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Addl. G.A.
Mr. H.M. Saraswat
Mr. Naresh Gera, S.I.,
P.S. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 28/09/2022
Pronounced on 30/09/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this misc. petition
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed and the impugned F.I.R. No. 06 dated 03.01.2020
registered at Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh as well as
entire proceedings/investigation as initiated thereunder qua the
petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner, are that on 03.01.2020, the
complainant-respondent no. 2, submitted a written report before
the S.H.O. Police Station, Nohar, District Hanumangarh wherein
certain allegations were levelled against the present petitioner
(Downloaded on 30/09/2022 at 09:24:33 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5694/2021]
regarding forging of certain pattas of the Gram Panchayat Aradaki,
pertaining to a parcel of land upon which a ladies toilet stood, in
Ward No. 16 of the said Gram Panchayat. And that on the basis of
such report, the concerned police authorities registered the
impugned F.I.R. No.06/2020 for the offences under Sections 420,
465, 467, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., at Police Station Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is being falsely implicated in the present case, and that
the impugned F.I.R. ought to be quashed, looking into the facts
and circumstances surrounding the case. It was further submitted
that the persons residing around the land in question, sought to
grab such land and that there is an inordinate delay of about 40
years in filing of the impugned FIR, since allegedly forged pattas
were issued in the year 1979 & 1980, but the F.I.R. was lodged in
the year 2020, and no explanation or justification was given for
such an inordinate delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner's father followed the due process of making an
application, whereupon the concerned Gram Panchayat issued the
Patta with respect to the land in question to the petitioner's father.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a
perusal of Annexures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would reveal that the
applications filed, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by the
petitioner reflects the entire record of transfer of the land in
question, and therefore, the F.I.R. impugned is baseless and ought
to be quashed.
(Downloaded on 30/09/2022 at 09:24:33 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5694/2021]
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate
as well as learned counsel for the private respondent jointly
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, and
submitted that looking into the contents of the F.I.R. impugned,
the present petition is without any merit and does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
8. This Court, upon a perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., finds
that specific allegations were made therein stating that certain
signatures and seals of the then Sarpanch of the concerned Gram
Panchayat were forged and fabricated, on the basis of which
certain mutations and transfers of the parcel of land in question
were made.
9. This Court, while keeping into consideration the ratio
decidendi laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v.
Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. (1992) Supp(1) SCC 335 and looking
into the factual matrix of the case at hand, and the evidences
placed on the record, does not find a case to be made out,
warranting any interference.
10. Resultantly, the present petition fails, and the same is hereby
dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
