Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohanlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:15218) on 21 March, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:15218]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3959/2024
1. Sohanlal S/o Sh. Pannaram Sirvi, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Bera Jamidaro Ki Dhimadi, Bagdinagar, Bagdi, Pali
2. Virendra Pratap S/o Sh. Ganeshram Jat, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Pachunda Kalla, Sojat Road, Pali
3. Arjunlal S/o Sh. Kesaram Darji, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Sojat Road, Pali
4. Hemraj @ Hemaram S/o Sh. Jogaram Sirvi, Aged About
52 Years, R/o Sojat Road, Pali
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kailash S/o Sh. Durg Singh Sirvi, Aged About 37 Years, R/
o Sawras, Sojat Road, Pali
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4466/2024
Kailash S/o Late Durg Singh Sirvi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Sawrad, Sojat Road, Dist. Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Pali.
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Sojat City, Dist. Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Dungar Charan
Mr. Tarun Dhaka
Mr. Hari Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NK Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG with
Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan
Mr. Chunaram, IPS, SP, Pali
Mr. Devidan Barath, SHO, Sojat City
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
21/03/2025
1. These two petitions have been preferred before this Court,
one on behalf of the complainant seeking fair investigation in FIR
No.190/2024 of Police Station Sojat City, District Pali in the matter
[2025:RJ-JD:15218] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3959/2024]
and the other on behalf of the accused seeking quashing of the
same. An interim order restraining arrest had been passed on
earlier occasion in the petition preferred on behalf of the accused.
The core question was the authorship of the signature on the
disputed will and, for which, the document was procured from the
Court where it was lying in a civil proceeding and the same was
sent to the handwriting expert at FSL. The examination could not
be conducted properly because of lack of sufficient documents and
it was notified to the police. Instead of collection of the requisite
material and sending the same to the FSL for making comparison
of the disputed signature with the undisputed one to ascertain the
authorship of the signature on the will in question; the Agency,
under misconception, found the allegations incorrect and filed a
negative final report before the learned Magistrate.
1.2 This Court must have passed an order in this regard because
the matter was subjudice before this Court and in the meantime, a
negative final report was submitted. An anguish has also been
shown in the manner and the hang haste, in which, the negative
final report was submitted, however, convincing with the
explanation furnished by the Superintendent of Police and
considering the entirety of the material and so also taken into
account the fact that a negative final report submitted and the
same is pending adjudication before a Judicial Magistrate, it is
deemed appropriate to disposed of both the petitions with the
directions to the learned Magistrate to hear the complainant on
the protest petition moved on his behalf. In light of the judgment
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Minu
Kumari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (2006) 4 SCC
[2025:RJ-JD:15218] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3959/2024]
359, the learned Magistrate is fully empowered to send back the
matter for further investigation in the matter if a prayer is made in
this regard by the complainant and if he feels it appropriate.
2. Since a negative final report is submitted, the misc. petition
preferred on behalf of the accused seeking quashing of the
aforementioned FIR is disposed of with the clear direction that no
coercive measure shall be taken against them in future unless any
express order is passed by a Court having competent jurisdiction
in this regard.
3. The misc. petition preferred on behalf of the complainant is
disposed of with a liberty to him to approach the trial Court for
redressal of his grievances, for which, he has made application
before this Court.
4. The slight observations made above in these petitions shall
not in any manner influence the merits of the case and it is being
done only with a view to justify the disposal of these two petitions.
5. The complainant would be at liberty to submit the report of
private handwriting expert which he has in his possession and any
other document in support of his contention and the learned
Magistrate shall take the same on record and consider the same
appropriately and then would pass a reasoned order in accordance
with the settled principle of law.
6. Stay petitions also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
312-313 divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
