Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jagdish Meena S/O Shri Ramphool Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 September, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 360/2019
1. Jagdish Meena S/o Shri Ramphool Meena, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Khounchpuri, Police Station Mahwa Distt.
Dausa Raj.
2. Ramphool S/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Khounchpuri, Police Station Mahwa Distt. Dausa Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Dharmendra S/o Shri Mohan Singh B/c Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Khounchpuri, Police Station Mahwa
Distt. Dausa Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav GA Cum AAG
Mr. Karanpal Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
Order Reserved on :: 13.9.2022
Order Pronounced on :: 15.9.2022
The petitioner has filed this criminal writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 315 (1)(h)
of Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 for quashing the FIR
No.38/2019 registered at Police Station Mahwa, District Dausa for
the offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent
No.2 has lodged the false FIR on misconceived facts against the
petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Gram
Panchayat Khonchpuri, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa had issued the
patta in favour of petitioner No.1 in the year 1999. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent No.2 is
(Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 10:17:36 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLW-360/2019]
trying to encroach the petitioner's land and destroying the
construction made by the petitioner then petitioner No.1 has filed
the civil suit against the respondent No.2 in the Civil Judge,
Mahwa in which trial court granted temporary injunction in favour
of the petitioner on 28.8.2018. So, matter pertains to civil nature
but giving it as criminal colour. Respondent No.2 had lodged the
present FIR to harass and humiliate the petitioners. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that whether patta was issued
in favour of the petitioner No.1 is forged or not. It is to be decided
by Civil Court after taking evidence. So, present FIR is not
maintainable and the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 be
quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of
Uttrakhand & ors. reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 67.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 have opposed the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after the
investigation, Investigating Officer had found the offences u/s
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. Learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that Gram Panchayat Khonchpuri, Panchayat
Samiti Mahwa replied that disputed patta is not available in the
record. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also submits that
he had filed the affidavits of Hatendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Vijay
Kumar Sharma and in their affidavits they had clearly stated that
forged signatures were done on disputed patta. Learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 also submits that petitioners had
connivance in making forged patta. So, petition be dismissed.
(Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 10:17:36 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLW-360/2019]
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance
on the following judgments: (1) Hakumat Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2008 (3) RCC 1056; (2) Babulal Sharma
Vs. The Judge, Family Court No.2 Jaipur & anr. 2008 (3) RCC
1057; (3) Tanveer Khan vs. State & anr. in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.2178/07 decided on 29.2.2008; (4) Alpic Finance Ltd.
and P.Sadasivan and anr. (2001) 3 SCC 513; (5) Union of India &
ors. vs. B.R. Bajaj and ors. AIR 1994 SC 1256; (6) M. Krishnan
vs. Vijay Singh and anr. (2001) 8 SCC 645; (7) Jagdev Singh and
anr. vs. State of Raj. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1644/07
decided on 10.3.2008.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor.
It is an admitted position that record of the disputed patta is not available in the concerned Panchayat. After the investigation, Investigating Officer has found offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. So, in my considered opinion, there is no ground to quash the FIR lodged against the petitioners. So, present petition being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, present petition stands dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Brijesh 23.
(Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 10:17:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)