Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhapa Devi vs State on 25 October, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3675/2018
1. Dhapa Devi W/o Pura Ram, Aged About 92 Years,
2. Surta Ram S/o Pura Ram, Aged About 70 Years,
3. Col. Phool Singh S/o Pura Ram, Aged About 67 Years,
4. Kamla D/o Pura Ram, Aged About 60 Years,
5. Vimla D/o Pura Ram, Aged About 56 Years,
6. Pratap Singh Adopted S/o Ganpat Ram, Aged 52 Years,
7. Mohani D/o Ganpat Ram, Aged About 75 Years,
8. Kisturi D/o Ganpat Ram, Aged About 63 Years,
9. Omprakash S/o Durjaram, Aged About 58 Years,
10. Sajna D/o Durjaram, Aged About 55 Years,
11. Barji W/o Bhadar Singh, Aged About 62 Years,
12. Praveen S/o Bhadar Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
13. Suman D/o Bhadar Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
14. Patasi W/o Jesaram, Aged About 72 Years,
15. Indraaj S/o Jesaram, Aged About 55 Years,
16. Dhani D/o Jesaram, Aged About 40 Years,
17. Savitri D/o Jesaram, Aged About 36 Years,
All petitioners are by caste Jat and residents of Bas
Mahalan, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Rohtash S/o Amar Singh, by caste Jat, Residents of Bas
Mahalan, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 25/10/2018
1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.70/2018 dated 26.03.2018 registered at Police Station Taranagar, District (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3675/2018] Churu and all consequential and incidental proceedings arising therefrom for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that on 26.03.2018, respondent No.2 lodged a report before the SHO, Police Station Taranagar, District Churu with an allegation that the complainant's grandfather Mangla @ Magaram S/o Shri Khema Ram had a self acquired agricultural land measuring 56 Bigha 9 Biswa situated in various Khasras of Rohi Hadiyal, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu. After the death of complainant's grandfather, the said land was entered in the Khatedari of his sons, namely, Amar Singh, Baluram and Ummed Singh, and after the death of Amar Singh, the land of his share devolved in his legal heirs. After death of Baluram, his share in the land was entered in the name of his legal heirs. The allegation is that the petitioners who are also the family members, hatched a conspiracy to usurp the land by preparing a false declaration, purportedly made by the original owner i.e. Late Shri Mangla (complainant's grandfather) by purchasing the stamp in Jaipur on 07.02.1991.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed a suit against the respondent seeking declaration and partition by metes and bounds. The document (Annex.2), which is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by respondent No.2, sought dismissal of the suit pertaining to the aforesaid declaration made on 07.02.1991 in Jaipur on the count that the said document is more than 25 years old, and since the same was barred by limitation, therefore, the suit ought to be dismissed.
4. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, a bare reading of the said line suggests that the parties are accepting (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3675/2018] that some kind of agreement was there which has become a sole ground of lodging the present FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that if the complete documentation of the revenue suit and civil suit are brought before the investigating officer, then the petitioners shall be able to substantiate that no case against them is made out.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the petitioners submit a representation alongwith all the necessary documents before the concerned investigating authority within a period of fifteen days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, before completing the investigation.
7. In light of the aforesaid assurance given by learned Public Prosecutor, the present misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the petitioners submit a representation alongwith all the necessary documents before it within a period of fifteen days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided before completing the investigation, strictly in accordance with law and as per the assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor. However, if during the investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to arrest the petitioners, then the petitioners shall be given 15 days notice before making such arrest. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be required to join and completely co-operate with the investigation.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J /zeeshan/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)