Jagdish Meena S/O Shri Ramphool ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6205 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 360/2019
1.     Jagdish Meena S/o Shri Ramphool Meena, Aged About 35
       Years, R/o Khounchpuri, Police Station Mahwa Distt.
       Dausa Raj.
2.     Ramphool S/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
       Khounchpuri, Police Station Mahwa Distt. Dausa Raj.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.     Dharmendra S/o Shri Mohan Singh B/c Meena, Aged
       About 30 Years, R/o Khounchpuri, Police Station Mahwa
       Distt. Dausa Raj.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Rajendra Yadav GA Cum AAG
                               Mr. Karanpal Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

Order Reserved on :: 13.9.2022 Order Pronounced on :: 15.9.2022

The petitioner has filed this criminal writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 315 (1)(h)

of Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 for quashing the FIR

No.38/2019 registered at Police Station Mahwa, District Dausa for

the offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent

No.2 has lodged the false FIR on misconceived facts against the

petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Gram

Panchayat Khonchpuri, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa had issued the

patta in favour of petitioner No.1 in the year 1999. Learned

counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent No.2 is

(2 of 3) [CRLW-360/2019]

trying to encroach the petitioner's land and destroying the

construction made by the petitioner then petitioner No.1 has filed

the civil suit against the respondent No.2 in the Civil Judge,

Mahwa in which trial court granted temporary injunction in favour

of the petitioner on 28.8.2018. So, matter pertains to civil nature

but giving it as criminal colour. Respondent No.2 had lodged the

present FIR to harass and humiliate the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that whether patta was issued

in favour of the petitioner No.1 is forged or not. It is to be decided

by Civil Court after taking evidence. So, present FIR is not

maintainable and the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 be

quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon

the judgment of Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of

Uttrakhand & ors. reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 67.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 have opposed the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after the

investigation, Investigating Officer had found the offences u/s

420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that Gram Panchayat Khonchpuri, Panchayat

Samiti Mahwa replied that disputed patta is not available in the

record. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also submits that

he had filed the affidavits of Hatendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Vijay

Kumar Sharma and in their affidavits they had clearly stated that

forged signatures were done on disputed patta. Learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 also submits that petitioners had

connivance in making forged patta. So, petition be dismissed.

(3 of 3) [CRLW-360/2019]

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance

on the following judgments: (1) Hakumat Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation reported in 2008 (3) RCC 1056; (2) Babulal Sharma

Vs. The Judge, Family Court No.2 Jaipur & anr. 2008 (3) RCC

1057; (3) Tanveer Khan vs. State & anr. in S.B. Criminal Misc.

Petition No.2178/07 decided on 29.2.2008; (4) Alpic Finance Ltd.

and P.Sadasivan and anr. (2001) 3 SCC 513; (5) Union of India &

ors. vs. B.R. Bajaj and ors. AIR 1994 SC 1256; (6) M. Krishnan

vs. Vijay Singh and anr. (2001) 8 SCC 645; (7) Jagdev Singh and

anr. vs. State of Raj. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1644/07

decided on 10.3.2008.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that record of the disputed patta is

not available in the concerned Panchayat. After the investigation,

Investigating Officer has found offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471

and 120B IPC against the petitioners. So, in my considered

opinion, there is no ground to quash the FIR lodged against the

petitioners. So, present petition being devoid of merits and liable

to be dismissed.

Therefore, present petition stands dismissed. Pending

applications also stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Brijesh 23.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)