Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 274 (RAJ)

Hanuman Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-22

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. The matter comes up for consideration of an application (APPLW No.266/2018) preferred on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer for early listing of the case. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the letter dated 10.03.2004 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent No.4-bank, whereby it has refused to release the agricultural land of the petitioner from mortgage on account of pendency of criminal case against some persons. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Beyant Singh, Gurprit Singh, Ashok Kumar and others entered into a criminal conspiracy, prepared forged document such as Registered Sale-deed etc. and obtained loan from the respondent No.4-bank while mortgaging agricultural land of the petitioner. When the loan amount was not repaid, the respondent No.4-bank initiated proceedings against the petitioner, however, the petitioner has informed the respondent No.4-bank that he never applied for any such loan and the documents furnished by the persons, for obtaining loan while mortgaging his agricultural land, are forged one. 5. After due inquiry, the respondent No.4-bank lodged FIR No.108/2004 at Police Station Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh on 19.02.2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Beyant Singh, Gurprit Singh and petitioner - Hanuman Singh. 6. The police, after thorough investigation, filed charge-sheet against four persons viz. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Beyant Singh, Gurprit Singh and Ashok Kumar while concluding that all the above named persons have prepared forged document regarding agricultural land of the petitioner and thereafter they have obtained loan from the respondent No.4-bank while mortgaging the said land. 7. It is noticed that the police has not found the petitioner as guilty for commission of any offence in relation to the FIR filed by the respondent No.4-bank. 8. After filing of charge-sheet, the petitioner has moved an application with the respondent No.4-bank with a prayer for releasing his agricultural land from mortgage, however, the respondent No.4-bank vide impugned letter dated 10.03.2004 (Annexure-7) has refused to release the same on account of pendency of criminal case in the matter. 9. 8. After filing of charge-sheet, the petitioner has moved an application with the respondent No.4-bank with a prayer for releasing his agricultural land from mortgage, however, the respondent No.4-bank vide impugned letter dated 10.03.2004 (Annexure-7) has refused to release the same on account of pendency of criminal case in the matter. 9. As per the petitioner, the respondent No.4-bank has further asked the petitioner to give his evidence in the criminal case as prosecution witness, which the petitioner has complied with. However, despite repeated requests, the respondent No.4-bank has not released the agricultural land of the petitioner from mortgage. Hence, this writ petition. 10. The respondent No.4-bank has filed reply to the writ petition, in which though the respondent No.4-bank has admitted that as per the charge-sheet filed by the police, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Beyant Singh, Gurprit Singh and Ashok Kumar have prepared some forged documents relating to the agricultural land of the petitioner and thereafter on the basis of the said forged document obtained loan from it and the petitioner was not found guilty by the police but since the agricultural land of the petitioner is mortgaged with the respondent No.4-bank and a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 has been registered by Sub Registrar, Hanumangarh, the agricultural land of the petitioner cannot be released from mortgage. It is also submitted that as the amount of loan is also due till date, therefore, also the agricultural land of the petitioner cannot be released from mortgage. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that when, pursuant to the FIR filed by the respondent No.4-bank, the police has filed charge-sheet against the accused persons while concluding that those accused persons have prepared the forged documents on the basis of which they have obtained loan from the respondent No.4-bank and there is no involvement of the petitioner in the said offence, it is not fair on the part of the respondent No.4-bank to refuse to release the agricultural land of the petitioner from mortgage. 12. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed. 12. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed. The declaration registered under Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 by the Sub Registrar, Hanumagarh mortgaging the agricultural land of the petitioner is set aside. The respondent No.4-bank is directed to immediately release the agricultural land of the petitioner from mortgage. 13. Consequently, the application (APPLW No.266/2018) is disposed of.