Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2359 (RAJ)

Bhomraj Gurjar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-02

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The captioned criminal misc. petitions and writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India question two FIRs, being FIR No.571/2019 registered on the complaint of Shankar Lal and FIR No.576/2019 that was registered on the complaint of Mahadev Gurjar at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara. 2. The genesis of the dispute between rival parties is plot Nos.85 and 86 of Gram Malan, Tehsil & District Bhilwara, on which both the persons are claiming ownership through their respective chain of documents derived from one 'Shivnarayan'. 3. The criminal misc. petition No.3107/2022 has been filed by Bhomraj Gurjar, who stood as witness in the contentious agreement to sale and the other petition being criminal misc. petition No.5636/2019 has been filed by Mahadev Gurjar. Both these petitions have challenged the FIR No.571/2019 whereas, Mahadev Gurjar has also filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking fair investigation in the FIR No.576/2019 which he had lodged seeking prosecution of Shankar Lal. 4. In the Misc. Petition No.211/2022, Mahadev Gurjar has also challenged the notice dated 20.02.2022 issued by the Circle Officer, Bhilwara. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset submitted that after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer furnished a factual report dated 18.10.2020 and apprised the Court that after investigation, the Investigating Officer has not found any offence committed by the petitioner (Mahadev Gurjar) whereas, the complainant (Shankar Lal) himself was found to have indulged in creating forged documents. 6. Learned counsel submitted that in light of the factual report so submitted by the then Investigating Officer, the Court per viam its order dated 10.11.2020 rendered petitioner's earlier misc. petition (No.3330/2020) as infructuous. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though the issue had been set at rest, the petitioner came to receive a notice dated 20.02.2022 whereby, the Circle Officer, Bhilwara has elicited information/response in relation to 14 additional points. 8. It is the case of petitioner that once a factual report has been submitted before the High Court and the misc. petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of on the basis of such report, it does not lie in the mouth of Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation instead of submitting the final report in terms of the factual report dated 18.10.2020. 9. petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of on the basis of such report, it does not lie in the mouth of Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation instead of submitting the final report in terms of the factual report dated 18.10.2020. 9. It was argued that if further investigation was to be carried out, it was required of the police authorities to at least seek leave of this Court before conducting further investigation as this Court had closed the proceedings of the misc. petition No.3330/2020. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that arguments of the petitioner are bereft of any substance. He argued that so far as further investigation is concerned, the same can be done even after negative final report has been accepted much less filed and present one is a case, where final report was not even submitted in the competent court. 11. He argued that it is routine practice that when the complainant or aggrieved party makes his representation before the higher authority in relation to the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer, the higher authority goes through the record/investigation and then issues direction (if required) to carry out investigation, which has been done in the instant case. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the information which has been sought by the Circle Officer, Bhilwara per-viam impugned communication dated 20.02.2022, this Court is of the view that the same goes to the root of the matter and these aspects are better looked into by the Investigating Officer, before taking a final view of the matter. 13. What has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners is to be considered appropriately by the police authorities and in normal circumstances once a conclusion has been brought to the notice of the High Court, further investigation should not be adhered to as a matter of course. Such approach of the police authorities leads to unwarranted harassment to litigants, who being assured of dropping the proceedings against them (on the finding of no offence brought by the Investigating Officer) are again required to rush to the Court. 14. Be that as it may. 15. This Court is of the view that in the instant case, the police authorities were justified in investigating the matter further qua 14 points as has been indicated in the communication dated 20.02.2022. 16. 14. Be that as it may. 15. This Court is of the view that in the instant case, the police authorities were justified in investigating the matter further qua 14 points as has been indicated in the communication dated 20.02.2022. 16. Since, rival parties are contesting their claims/ownership/title/possession over the disputed land and after investigation, the Investigating Officer had found the present petitioner (Mahadev Gurjar) to be innocent and Mr. Shankar Lal to be guilty of creating forged documents whereafter, the investigation is turning turtle, this Court is of the view that both the parties are entitled to freely put forth their submissions before the Investigating Officer. 17. Hence, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner - Mahadev Gurjar shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 09.09.2022 along with his representation/documents and explain his position. 18. The rival party - Shankar Lal would also appear before the Investigating Officer along with his documents on 16.09.2022 and put forth his submission. 19. The Investigating Officer shall consider the same in accordance with law and draw his conclusion briefly delving upon submissions. 20. Having regard to the complex factual dispute, if the Investigating Officer finds any of the parties guilty of creating forged/false documents, he shall file charge-sheet in accordance with law against such person under due intimation to the accused. 21. At the time of filing of charge-sheet, the accused shall furnish personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. 22. The trial Court after being satisfied shall accept the same and proceed in accordance with law. 23. Needless to observe that during investigation/interrogation, the Investigating Officer shall not arrest the petitioners. 24. All the above captioned petitions stands disposed of accordingly. 25. The stay petitions also stand disposed of.