Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Babu Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 August, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3108/2022

Amar Lal S/o Kharta Ram, Aged About 65 Years, 316, Society Nagar, Pali, Dist. Pali, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Pp

2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Thana Ram, Bhagesar, Sadar Pali, Dist.

Pali, Raj.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5914/2021 Babu Lal S/o Sh. Bhikaji, Aged About 58 Years, Village Bhangesar, Teh. And Dist. Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Thana Ram, Bhagesar, Sadar Pali, Dist.

Pali, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6497/2021

1. Chunni Lal S/o Shri Babu Lal Bhat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Bhangesar, Tehsil And District Pali.

2. Darbara Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram Bhat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Bhangesar, Tehsil And District Pali.

3. Ranka Ram S/o Shri Rana Ram Bhat, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Bhangesar, Tehsil And District Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Pp

2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Thana Ram, R/o Bhagesar, Sadar Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2268/2022 Govind S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 41 Years, Ravali Pool Village Bhangesar, Teh. And Dist. Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Thana Ram, Bhagesar, Sadar Pali, Dist.

Pali, Rajasthan.

                                                             ----Respondents



                                       (2 of 8)                    [CRLMP-3108/2022]



For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Vikas Bijarnia.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP.
                                 Mr. Surya Prakash Sharma.


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                                      Order

19/08/2023

The instant criminal miscellaneous petitions have been

preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing entire proceeding

arising out of FIR No.92/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar

Pali, District Pali for offences under 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B

IPC.

As per prosecution story, Shri Thana Ram Bhaat who had

khatedari rights over Khasra No.520/10, admeasuring 70 bighas

and 14 biswas, situated in Gram Bhangesar, passed away in the

year 2001. On 04.10.2001, Government of Rajasthan launched

campaign named 'Prashashan Gaon ke Sang', in which the names

of heirs of Shri Thana Ram Bhaat i.e. five sons namely, Panchhi

Ram, Bhanwar Lal, Vena Ram, Joga Ram, Oma Ram and wife of

Shri Thana Ram Bhat, Smt. Raji Devi, were to be entered in the

mutation but instead family members of Shri Thana Ram Bhaat,

Ranka Ram @ Ranjit son of Rana Ram, Darbara Ram son of Jetha

Ram (petitioner Nos.3 and 2 respectively in CRLMP

No.6497/2021), allegedly claimed to be fake heirs of Shri Thana

Ram Bhaat, through Babu Lal (petitioner in CRLMP No.5914/2021)

told Halka Patwari - Amar Lal (petitioner in CRLMP No.3108/2022)

about the same and got their names identified and registered as

heirs of Shri Thana Ram Bhaat in the mutation and thereby reaped

the benefits of disputed land.

                                      (3 of 8)                    [CRLMP-3108/2022]



     Petitioners -     Ranka Ram and Darbara Ram (in CRLMP

No.6497/2021) thereafter, on 05.03.2021, created power of

attorney in relation to their share (two-eight) of the disputed land,

admeasuring 17 bighas and 13 biswas, in favour of their cousin-

petitioner - Chunni Lal son of Babu Lal (petitioner No.1 in CRLMP

No.6497/2021). Petitioner - Chunni Lal, on the basis of above

mentioned power of attorney, got sale agreement created in

favour of his brother Govind son of Babu Lal (petitioner in CRLMP

No.2268/2022). All the accused-petitioner belonging to the same

family being well aware about the forged documents (forged

mutation, power of attorney and sale agreement) intentionally

created and used them, in order to cheat and deprive the

complainant of his right to the disputed land.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that FIR has

been lodged against present petitioner with an oblique motive by

Bhanwar Lal - respondent No.2 in all these Misc. Petitions. Learned

counsel submitted that mutation entries were made in the year

2001, in the names of petitioners except Amar Lal who was Halka

Patwari at that time. It was submitted that the names were

allegedly entered on the basis of a will executed by deceased -

Thana Ram Bhaat on 12.06.1995. Learned counsel submitted that

admittedly, the petitioners except Amar Lal and complainant are

relatives of the deceased and the complainants were well aware of

the fact that mutation entries have been made in favour of

petitioners in the year 2001 itself. Learned counsel submitted that

in view of this factual scenario, the power of attorney executed by

petitioner - Darbara Ram in favour of petitioner - Chunni Lal is

genuine one. It was further argued that on the very same day,

(4 of 8) [CRLMP-3108/2022]

complainant also executed his share of the disputed land in favour

of Kheta Ram and both the power of attorneys had been notarised

by one Mangi Lal. It was thus urged that the complainant cannot

be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath.

It was vehemently submitted that admittedly, the mutation

entries in favour of petitioners- Ranka Ram and Darbara Ram were

made in the year 2001 and the same remained unchallenged for

years but when ill will developed in the mind of the complainant

and only with a view to put undue pressure upon petitioners, an

FIR in the year 2021 on the basis of false story and concocted

facts has been filed against them. Learned counsel submitted that

entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is

nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, FIR

No.92/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar Pali, District Pali,

may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and

submitted that thorough investigation has been conducted by the

investigating agency and it has been found that the petitioners -

Ranka Ram and Darbara Ram are not heirs of late Thana Ram. It

was also urged that the petitioners' electoral roll were taken from

Vidhan Sabha area, Sumerpur which revealed that petitioner-

Ranka Ram is son of Rana Ram while petitioner - Darbara Ram is

son of Jetha Ram. It was further urged that ration card of

petitioner - Darbara Ram was also taken during investigation

which fortified the information gathered from electoral roll. It was

submitted that the investigating agency had also procured the

ancestry report of above mentioned petitioners from Halka Patwari

(5 of 8) [CRLMP-3108/2022]

which also revealed that the petitioners are sons of Rana Ram and

Jetha Ram and not of Thana Ram. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that will allegedly executed by late Thana Ram in favour

of petitioners - Ranka Ram and Darbara Ram has neither been

produced on the record of the present criminal miscellaneous

petitions nor the same has been discovered by the investigating

agency during investigation. Alternatively, it was submitted that

even otherwise, genuineness of the will, if any, has to be

examined by the investigating agency only, after making due

inquires and conducting investigation into the matter.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations

made in the FIR clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence

and therefore, the police has to register the FIR which cannot be

termed as an abuse of the process of law. Learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant urged that

when the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, it would not be

proper for the Court to interfere with the investigation, particularly

when investigating agency, on the basis of material collected

during investigation has found the charges to be proved against

the petitioners.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.

reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein Hon'ble Apex

Court has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the

High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or

(6 of 8) [CRLMP-3108/2022]

otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Court

illustrated as under:-

"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

(7 of 8) [CRLMP-3108/2022]

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

complainant thus, prayed that the criminal miscellaneous petitions

deserve to be rejected by this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

material available on record.

Having gone through the contents of FIR and considered the

facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the case

of the petitioners hinges around certain revenue/mutation entries

made in favour of petitioners and power of attorney and sale

agreement based on will allegedly executed by late Thana Ram in

favour of present petitioners. It is apposite to note that the

alleged will has not been produced before this Court, even

otherwise, the validity and genuineness of the same cannot be

gone into by this court at this stage. This court also finds that