Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 878 (RAJ)

Balveer Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-09

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.9.2013 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur has refused to hand over the original pattas pertaining to one Kishore Khatik to the Investigating Officer, who is investigating the matter in connection with F.I.R. No. 44/2013 of Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur with the allegation of cheating and forgery against Shri Khemraj and others. The said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur wherein an F.I.R. No. 44/2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. In the complaint, it was alleged by one Smt. Pallvi Mehta that she has purchased a pattasud plot in her name, however, after purchasing the said plot by her, the original owner has sold the said plot twice to some other persons on the basis of some counterfeit patta prepared by the accused persons. 3. Earlier the father of the complainant Pallavi Mehta has filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Civil Court') for permanent injunction in respect of the plot in dispute and the said suit is registered as a Civil Suit No. 37/2010 and the plaintiff and defendant in the said suit have filed two original pattas in relation to the same plot. The Investigating Officer, who is investigating the matter in connection with F.I.R. No. 44/2013 has filed an application before the Civil Court while contending that as the rival parties are having two original pattas for the same property and for the purpose of investigation and for sending the original pattas for F.S.L., the same may be made available to him. The learned Civil Court has rejected the said application of the Investigating Officer vide order dated 6.9.2013. 4. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition. 5. The learned Civil Court has rejected the said application of the Investigating Officer vide order dated 6.9.2013. 4. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sushila Vyas v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 262 and has argued that the F.S.L. Report in respect of the original pattas is necessary for the purpose of investigation, however, the learned Court below has rejected the said application without taking into consideration the necessity of F.S.L. report for the purpose of investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer in F.I.R. No. 44/2013. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Civil Court and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and material available on record. 8. When the Investigating Officer has requested for handing over the pattas for the purpose of examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, then there is no justification on the part of the Civil Court to refuse the same without there being any cogent reasons. Keeping in view the specific allegations levelled by the complainant in the F.I.R. No. 44/2013, this Court is of the opinion that the F.S.L report in respect of pattas in existence for the disputed land is necessary for the completion of investigation. Considering the circumstances and in the interest of justice and looking to the necessity to obtain the F.S.L. report for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the pattas in possession by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the Investigating Officer before the Civil Court deserves to be allowed. 9. Hence, keeping in mind Rule 181 of General Rules (Criminal) 1986, the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan is directed to hand over the disputed original pattas in respect of disputed property to the Investigating Officer, produced before the Civil Court in Civil Original Case No. 37 of 2010 titled as Balveer Kumar v. Saiyad Najrul Islam and others The certified copy of the said patta be retained in the file of the Civil Original Case No. 37/2010 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan. After the F.S.L. report is received, the said documents will be produced before the Civil Court to be placed on record of the said civil suit.This Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed of in above terms.Petition allowed. *******