Megha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 8217 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33747]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8886/2022

Shravan Singh S/o Sh. Narayan Singh, Aged About 35 Years, B/c
Rajput R/o Vil. Keshar Pura Choutiyas Dist. Bhilwara
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Raghunath Singh S/o Devi Singh, B/c Rajput R/o 09
         Ramnagar Behind R.t.o. Jodhpur
                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7604/2022
Mohan Singh S/o Sh. Shiv Singh, Aged About 41 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o H.no. 06, Senikpuri Digari, P.s. Banar, Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Raghunath Singh S/o Devi Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o 09,
         Ramnagar, Behind R.t.o., Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8167/2022
1.       Megha Ram S/o Sh. Budha Ram, Aged About 47 Years, B/
         c Devasi, R/o Khawaspura, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District
         Jodhpur.
2.       Arjun Singh S/o Shri Achal Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
         B/c Rajput, R/o Shekhawato Ki Dhaniya, Oladan, District
         Nagour. Presently Senikpuri Digari, P.s. Banar, Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Raghunath Singh S/o Devi Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o 09,
         Ramnagar, Behind R.t.o., Jodhpur
                                                                 ----Respondents
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8642/2022
Devi Singh S/o Sh. Bagh Singh, Aged About 69 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Vill. Bhalasaria, P.s. Osian, Dist. Jodhpur.

                     (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:21:00 AM)
 [2023:RJ-JD:33747]                   (2 of 8)                     [CRLMP-8886/2022]


                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Raghunath Singh S/o Devi Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o 09,
         Ramnagar, Behind R.t.o. Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Bhawani Singh.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP.
                                Mr. Jog Singh Bhati.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

09/10/2023

These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.c. have

been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR

No.184/2020 registered at Police Station Banar, Jodhpur City East

for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B

IPC.

From the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that complainant

Raghunath Singh submitted a written report before Police Station,

Maha Mandir, Jodhpur stating inter alia that on 9.12.1993, his

father had purchased a part of land admeaduring 3 bighas and 15

biswas, out land bearing Khasra No.167 admeasuring 46 bighas

and 15 biswas, situated in Gram Digari, in the name of the

complainant- Ragunath who was aged about 12 years at that time,

from one khatedar Pirsingh son of Moti Singh through joint sale

deed, which was registered on 09.12.1993 in the office of Sub-

Registrar II, Jodhpur. Khatedar Pir Singh executed the sale

agreement in favour of complainant- Ragunath, making the

[2023:RJ-JD:33747] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-8886/2022]

complainant owner of agricultural plot No.7. It was further averred

in the complaint that the complainant since then, is having

ownership rights and has been enjoying possession over the land.

As per the complaint, the complainant recently came to know

from one Dilip Singh that one Mohan Singh (accused-petitioner)

had met with Dilip Singh (complaint's acquaintance) and told that

he is the owner of agricultural plot No.7 situated in Khasra

No.167/2 and also showed his willingness to sell the plot. When

Dilip Singh asked for the documents showing ownership of Mohan

Singh over the disputed land, he was shown by Mohan Singh a

copy of registry dated 09.07.2020. Petitioner- Mohan Singh had

received a sum of Rs.25,000/- from Dilip Singh as advance

consideration and provided him with a written receipt. After

making enquiries about the ownership of agricultural plot in

question, Dilip Singh came to know that the plot in question is a

purchased property of complainant since year 1993. Thereupon,

Dilip Singh contacted the complainant who then came to know

that accused-petitioner Mohan Singh by making accused-petitioner

Shravan Singh, a power of attorney holder of Chhatar Singh, had

executed the registry in his favour in the office of Sub-Registrar I,

Jodhpur. Accused-petitioner Shravan Singh had gotten the power

of attorney notarised from notary public on 7.8.2003.

The complainant on the basis of above mentioned documents

enquired and came to know that Chhatar Singh had passed away

way back in the year 2002 and that he had not executed any

general power of attorney during his lifetime. It was further stated

in the complaint that after the death of Chhatar Singh, the

registered sale deed held by petitioner- Mohan Singh is a forged

[2023:RJ-JD:33747] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-8886/2022]

document which has been created by him. It was further stated in

the complaint that accused-petitioners Mohan Singh and Shravan

Singh, in order to make this fake and forged document had taken

aid of accused-petitioners Arjun Singh and Megha Ram who had

signed the document as witnesses. On 26.07.2020, when Dilip

Singh came to know about the above factual scenario, he

contacted Mohan Singh and told him that the sale deed, on the

strength of which, he was selling the land is a completely forged

document. Accused-petitioner Mohan Singh on being confronted

about the document by Dilip Singh was told by him that he is

rescinding the agreement to sell the aforesaid plot. He further told

Dilip Singh to return the photo copy of the sale deed and the

advance receipt which had been given to him. However, the

petitioner did not return the money received as advance

consideration. Accused-petitioners Mohan Singh, Shravan Singh,

Arjun Singh, Megha Ram and Devi Singh had conspired with each

other and created a forged general power of attorney in the name

of a dead person and using the same, had executed sale deed in

favour of Mohan Singh, in order to grab the land (agricultural plot

No.7) belonging to the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR

has been lodged against the present petitioners with an ulterior

motive by respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submitted

that the documents (registry, sale deed and the power of

attorney) are genuine. Learned counsel further contended that the

dispute in the present case is purely of civil nature which has been

given a colour of criminal case by respondent No.2.

[2023:RJ-JD:33747] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-8886/2022]

Learned counsel also submitted that the investigating agency

after conducting thorough investigation on three occasions into

the matter, had proposed a negative final report. Learned counsel

vehemently submitted that the investigation was reopened and

during re-investigation conducted for extraneous reasons, the

petitioners have been found to be guilty of the offences alleged

against them by the investigating agency. Learned counsel

submitted that the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated

against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law

and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside by the

court.

Per contra, learned Public prosecutor opposed the

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and

submitted that after conducting investigation into the matter, the

offences against the petitioners have been found to be proved.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant

submitted that the investigating agency, during investigation

found that the documents i.e. the sale deed and the power of

attorney are forged and had been created by the petitioners, with

a view to grab the land of the complainant- respondent No.2.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even otherwise, the

genuineness of the documents, if any, is a matter of investigation,

which can only be gone into by the investigating agency.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations

made in the FIR clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence

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

termed to be an abuse of process of law. Learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant jointly

[2023:RJ-JD:33747] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-8886/2022]

submitted that the FIR and the investigation conducted pursuant

thereto, reveals commission of cognizable offence and therefore,

the present criminal miscellaneous petitions deserve to be

dismissed by this Court.

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

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

illustrated as under:-

"(a) where the allegations made in the First InformationReport 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 ofSection 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 underSection 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;

[2023:RJ-JD:33747] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-8886/2022]

(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."

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

material available on record.

Having gone through the contents of the FIR and having

considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

finds that the case of the petitioners is based on certain

documents i.e. power of attorney and sale deed made in their

favour and the registry executed on strength of such documents.

The investigating agency during the course of investigation has

found that the above-mentioned documents to be forged and had

been created by the petitioners, with a view to grab the land of

the complainant respondent No.2 i.e. agricultural plot No.7

situated in Digari. Even otherwise, it is for the investigating

agency to find out whether the documents on which the

petitioners rely to contend that they have not committed any

offence, are forged or genuine on the basis of evidence collected

during the course of investigation. The investigating agency has

found commission of cognizable offence against the petitioners to

be proved.

[2023:RJ-JD:33747] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-8886/2022]

In the opinion of this Court, availability of recourse to civil

remedy cannot be a ground to casts doubts or raise question

about the averments contained in the FIR. In case, the

prosecution fails to prove the charges levelled against the

petitioners before the competent criminal court, the consequences

will ensue.

This Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate at

this stage to scan the entire material produced before it in

extenso and record findings of definitive character for quashing

the FIR. The Court is of the firm view that the perusal of the FIR

and the averments contained therein, disclose commission of

cognizable offence and it is well settled that the Court while

exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, is not

required to adjudicate upon the correctness or genuineness of the

allegations levelled against the accused petitioners.

In view of above, this Court does not find the instant case to

be a fit case for quashing the FIR by exercising its inherent powers

under Section 482 CrPC.

Accordingly, the present miscellaneous petitions fail and

stand dismissed.

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)