Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh & Anr vs State & Anr on 17 July, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 750 / 2016
1. Santosh D/o Shri Arjun Ram, wife of Balkishan
2. Balkishan son of Chandu Ram
Both are caste Kumahar, resident of Chak 13 MLD, Tehsil
Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The state of Rajasthan.
2. Jagdish Prasad son of late Shri Arjun Ram, by caste Kumahar,
Resident of Ward No.26, Makhan Singh ki Badi, Hanumangarh,
District hanumangarh.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R Bhatnagar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit PP for the State.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 17/07/2017
1. The petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the registration & investigation / proceedings in the matter of FIR dated 15.09.2015 bearing No.584/2015 of Hanumangarh Town Police Station, Distt. Hanumangarh, for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there was a registered will which is on record of the file and on the basis of registered will, the petitioners were the owner of the property in dispute. The counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the only allegation is that during the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-750/2016] mutation, the petitioners committed cheating by misusing the version of the respondent No.2 for mutation entries done in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment in Rameshwar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2476/2012 decided on 7.02.2013, [2013 (1) Cr.L.R. Raj. 452], by which this Court has come to the conclusion that mutation entries are fiscal entries and do not create any right in property. Hence, no offence is made out pertaining to the wrongful fiscal entries.
3. The counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes and argued that since wrongful affidavit or relinquish deed was projected by the petitioners, offence are made out.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners were the legal owners of the property in dispute, which was passed on by the father of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 by virtue of registrered will, which is on record and therefore, the title of the petitioner No.1 and 2 is not in dispute.
5. This Court also noted the fact that the will concerned has not been challenged anywhere in any civil court and acquired finality as far as title of the disputed property is concerned. On account of title arising out of the registrered will, which is unchallenged, the mutation entry is a mere fiscal entry and does not create any right and does not create any impact on the merit of the case. At the face of it, the FIR does not constitute any criminal offence.
6. Hence, the petition is allowed and consequently, the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-750/2016] FIR No.584/2015, registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC are hereby quashed at set aside along with all other consequential offences.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. ck