Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2003 (RAJ)

Chiranji Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2021-10-22

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2021
ORDER 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners for quashing of FIR No.5/2020, registered at Police Station Bonly, District Sawai Madhopur for offence under Sections 143, 452, 379 & 427 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had initially lodged an FIR No.4/2020 dated 3rd January, 2020 for offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1) (S) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the complainant and other persons. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are lawful owner of the plot measuring 280 Square Yards, situated at New Basti, Indira Colony, Bonly, Sawai Madhopur with Patta No.8 dated 3rd June, 1989, issued by Gram Panchyat Bonly and the said plot was purchased by registered sale deed. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant, in order to take unlawful possession of plot from the petitioners, came with 10-12 persons and started abusing the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel submitted that when for the said incident, FIR was not lodged, the petitioners had to file compliant under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Sawai Madhopur and later on, FIR was registered. 6. Learned counsel submitted that concocted story was made by the complainant and he lodged cross FIR bearing No.5/2020 mentioning the date of incident as 7th December, 2019. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant also filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge Bonly in respect of the same plot and there the date of incident has been mentioned as 8th December, 2019. 8. Learned counsel submitted that in the FIR No.4/2020, which was lodged by the petitioner, the Police, after conducting investigation in malicious manner, filed Final Report finding no case to be made out against the complainant. 9. Learned counsel submitted that in the FIR No.5/2020, which has been registered against the petitioners, the Police, after investigation, has filed challan against the petitioners and the petitioners had to seek anticipatory and regular bail from the High Court. 10. 9. Learned counsel submitted that in the FIR No.5/2020, which has been registered against the petitioners, the Police, after investigation, has filed challan against the petitioners and the petitioners had to seek anticipatory and regular bail from the High Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the FIR No.5/2020, has made following submissions : (i) the entire story of the prosecution is concocted, (ii) the date of incident has not been correctly mentioned by the complainant, as in the FIR, date of incident is alleged on 7th December, 2019 and in the Civil Court, the incident is said to be of 8th December, 2019 and in fact, the version, which has been given by the petitioners in their FIR No.4/2020, is of 5th December, 2019. (iii) there is a delay in lodging FIR and as such, the Police, in connivance with the complainant, has lodged an FIR against the petitioners as a counter blast. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material, available on record. 13. This Court finds that challenge to the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained by the Court if from bare reading of the FIR, no case is made out. 14. This Court further finds that when cross FIRs have been lodged by the parties against each other and the Police after conducting investigation files charge sheet in one case and Final Report in another case, finding that no case is made out then the same cannot be a ground to quash the FIR, wherein charge sheet is filed by the Police. 15. The submission of learned counsel that different dates of incident have been given at three different places and as such, the FIR has concocted story, suffice it to say by this Court that it is for the Police to conduct investigation and ultimately, when the criminal case is tried in the competent Court, the parties are always at liberty to lead evidence before the Court to prove that no offence is made out and it is too early for this Court to comment as in what manner, the alleged incident has taken place. 16. 16. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been a delay in lodging FIR and accordingly, the FIR may be quashed, suffice it to say by this Court that if the FIR No.5/2020 has been lodged by the Police for alleged incident on 7th December, 2019 then it cannot be inferred that Police has acted in such a manner, which may be termed as lodging the FIR with delay. 17. In view of the above, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed.