Sita Devi W/O Late Shri Arjun Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6486 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8567/2021

1.     Sita Devi W/o Late Shri Arjun Lal Meghwal, R/o Thanedar
       Ji Ki Gali Village Govindpura, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer
       (Raj).
2.     Champa Lal S/o Late Shri Arjun Lal, R/o Thanedar Ji Ki
       Gali Village Govindpura, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer
       (Raj).
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.     Mardul Somani S/o Shri Ravi Somani, R/o 67 Pratham
       Polo, Pawta, Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhedia, PP Mr. Samit Bishnoi, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 28.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 30.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR

No.643/2021 registered at Police Station Beawar City, District

Ajmer for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471, 447, 384 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent

No.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners with ulterior motive

just to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners

also submits that a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose any

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-8567/2021]

offence against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners

also submits that a civil suit was filed by the petitioners before the

learned S.D.O. in which judgment and decree was passed in

favour of the petitioners. Petitioners had taken the electricity

connection on disputed land. So, the dispute is between electricity

board and complainant-respondent. Petitioners have no concerned

in it. So, FIR against the petitioners be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant-respondent have opposed the arguments advanced

by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that as per

investigation report, petitioners had encroached the land belongs

to complainant-respondent and after investigation, Investigating

Officer had found proved the offence under Sections 420, 447,

448 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners. Learned counsel for

the complainant-respondent also submitted that during trial,

petitioners can raise any objection regarding their possession. So,

petition be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

complainant-respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.

After investigation, Investigating Officer had found proved

the offence under Sections 420, 447, 448 and 120-B IPC against

the petitioners and Investigating Officer in its report clearly stated

that petitioners had encroached the land belongs to the

complainant-respondent and they had taken the electricity

connection on wrong facts. So, in my considered opinion, no

ground for quashing of FIR is made out. So, present petition filed

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-8567/2021]

by the petitioners, being devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands

dismissed.

Pending application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /90

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)