Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1543 (RAJ)

Narpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-18

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - These two misc. petitions have been preferred by the respective petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. 77/2012 registered at P.S. Maoth Dist. Nagaur for the offences under Sections 166, 167, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. 2. Mr. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner Narpat Singh urges that exfacie the F.I.R. impugned amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court and thus deserves to be quashed. He submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property. He bonafide applied to the Panchayat for issuance of a Patta regarding the disputed property. The Panchayat after following due process of law directed issuance of Patta in favour of the petitioner Narpat Singh. Learned counsel submits that civil proceedings have also been initiated regarding the property in question and continuation of investigation of the impugned F.I.R. is grossly illegal and amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court. He, therefore, prays that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Chunnilal and others in Misc. Petition No. 2802/2012 submits that the petitioners are Sarpanch, Panchas and the employees of the Panchayat. The Panchayat after holding lawful proceedings in its quorum directed issuance of Patta to Narpat Singh. Learned counsel submits that the Patta in question was issued by the Panchayat following due process of law and thus no malafides can be attributed to the petitioners for their act. He contends that the continuation of investigation of the F.I.R. impugned is grossly illegal and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. He, therefore, urges that the F.I.R. impugned be quashed and the misc. petition may be accepted. 4. Per contra Mr. Vishal Sharma and Mr. Kartik Singh Lodha, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. O.P.Rathi learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contend that there is ample evidence available on record to show that the proceedings of the Panchayat were fabricated in order to issue Patta to Narpat Singh fraudulently. It is contended that the Patta issued in favour of Narpat Singh bears cuttings. Initially the Patta which was issued to Narpat Singh bore the date of issuance as 31.1.2010. The date of depositing money was mentioned as 29.1.2010. Thereafter it came to light that those dates were incorrect. It is contended that the Patta issued in favour of Narpat Singh bears cuttings. Initially the Patta which was issued to Narpat Singh bore the date of issuance as 31.1.2010. The date of depositing money was mentioned as 29.1.2010. Thereafter it came to light that those dates were incorrect. On this the Panchayat took resolution on 20.9.2012 and directed correction in the Patta observing that respective dates should be taken as 29.1.2011 and 30.1.2011. Learned counsel submits that the Patta bears the signature of Mr. Pannalal as secretary. Pannalal was not even posted as Secretary of Panchayat on 31.1.2011 and thus apparently the Patta is forged and fabricated. The proceedings of the Panchayat which were drawn up for issuance of Patta in question are of the year 2011. The original Patta bears the date of 2010 and despite the correction, it is evident that Patta is forged because the Secretary Pannalal who signed the Patta was not posted in the Panchayat at the relevant time. Thus, it is submitted that the Patta in question being prima facie forged and as proceedings of the Panchayat were drawn up fraudulently this Court should refrain from interfering in the impugned F.I.R. 5. Mr. O.P.Rathi, learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted I.O.'s factual report on record as per which, the offences have been found proved after thorough investigation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned F.I.R. as well as the factual report submitted by the I.O. 7. As per the factual report of the I.O., the proceedings of the Panchayat were drawn up fraudulently and forged Patta was issued by antedating the same. It is mentioned in the factual report that the notice was given to Narpat singh to deposit the Patta charges on 5.1.2011 whereas the original patta bears the date 31.1.2010. Thus, it is evident that when the notice of depositing money was given to Narpat Singh on 5.1.2011, the Patta could not be issued to him on 31.1.2010. In order to rectify and cover up the forgery the Gram Panchayat drew a resolution on 20.9.2012 for treating the relevant dates to be 29.1.2011 instead of 29.1.2010 and 30.1.2011 instead of 31.1.2011. These dates also did not rectify the action of the petitioners because the secretary who signed the Patta was not posted at Panchayat on the relevant date. In order to rectify and cover up the forgery the Gram Panchayat drew a resolution on 20.9.2012 for treating the relevant dates to be 29.1.2011 instead of 29.1.2010 and 30.1.2011 instead of 31.1.2011. These dates also did not rectify the action of the petitioners because the secretary who signed the Patta was not posted at Panchayat on the relevant date. Thus, there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioners have prima facie committed offences for which the F.I.R. impugned are registered. The I.O. has concluded that the offences have been found proved after thorough investigation and rightly so. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent powers of this Court to quash the impugned F.I.R. 9. The misc. petitions and the stay applications being devoid of any merit are hereby rejected. The I.O. is directed to file result of the investigation in the court concerned at the earliest. Copy of this order be forwarded to the I.O. forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******