Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1915 (RAJ)

Kanudevi v. State of Rajasthan Anr.

2010-11-15

SANGEET LODHA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. No. 155/2010 registered at Police Station, Gudamalani, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and her four daughters have relinquished their share in the property in question by executing a relinquishment deed which stands duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Sindhari on 4.7.2008. It is submitted that the entire land comprising Khasra No. 96 of village Jali Kheda Khudala, Gudamalani, District Barmer is in possession of the petitioner No. 1 inasmuch as, respondent, mother of the petitioner No. 1 was also residing with the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of relinquishment deed, the entire land stands mutated in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and the same is being cultivated by her since the year 2008-09. It is submitted that the dispute raised is of civil nature and an appropriate remedy is available to the complainant under the general law and the investigation started on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged is abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel submitted that if any forgery was committed then, the complainant would not have remained silent for about two years. 4. It is true that the relinquishment deed alleged to have been executed by the complainant and her four daughters in favour of the petitioner No. 1, who is also daughter of the complainant is duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Sindhari but then, the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are that as a matter of fact, the relinquishment deed was to be executed by all the daughters in favour of the mother, however the petitioners through a planned device got the relinquishment deed executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The complaint filed has been referred by the learned Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and at this stage till the matter is investigated, it cannot be said that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the case. 5. The complaint filed has been referred by the learned Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and at this stage till the matter is investigated, it cannot be said that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the case. 5. In considered opinion of this Court, the F.I.R. discloses the commission of offence and therefore, the investigation by the police cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal miscellaneous petition lacks merits and therefore, it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******