Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 747 (RAJ)

Mohanlal Gupta v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-04

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
ORDER 1. Both the petitions filed by the petitioners are arising out of same FIR so both are decided simultaneously. 2. By these criminal misc. petitions, petitioners want to quash the FIR bearing No.321/2019, registered at Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Sikar for the Offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 196 and 120-B IPC. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of these petitions are as under:- 4. Complainant had filed one complaint against the petitioners and other persons before Judicial Magistrate Srimadhopur, District Sikar and same was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and FIR was lodged against the petitioners and other persons bearing No.321/2019. In complaint, complainant stated that accused No.1 and 2 hatch a conspiracy with accused No.3 who was holding the post of Sarpanch at that time and created a forge patta and encroached land of 7 feet and also stated that said patta was issued in the name of Gaurishankar S/o Jainarayan Sharma. After that, said patta was renewed in the name of Chaganlal and Gajanand. Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had purchased this land knowingly that the said patta was forged. Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had filed a civil suit against the complainant by relying on forged patta and got injunction in their favour. So, these persons be punished under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchaser of the land. At the time of purchase, they were minor and the said land was purchased by their grand father-Dev Karanji. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that being a minor, petitioners were not able to enter into the valid contract. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the present FIR was lodged after inordinate delay of 39 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that petitioners had filed a civil suit regarding permanent injunction in the year 2009 and temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners in 2018. After that, complainant had lodged the present FIR in the year 2019 with mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that complainant had not challenged the patta issued in the year 1977. The said patta was renewed in the name of Chaganlal and Gajanand in 1980. After that, complainant had lodged the present FIR in the year 2019 with mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that complainant had not challenged the patta issued in the year 1977. The said patta was renewed in the name of Chaganlal and Gajanand in 1980. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that complainant had no locus standi to file the present FIR because as per FIR, he stated that he had possession of disputed land but he had not filed any titled documents regarding this land. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that previously in this matter, negative final report was filed. After that, complainant by way of political pressure got investigation changed. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that FSL report has received in this case in which signatures on patta are similar to the signature of Babu Lal Kumawat. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the civil suit is pending between the parties. Genuineness of the patta is to be determined by the civil court. So, the present FIR against the petitioners be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Gajanand has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta and submitted that disputed land was purchased by his father in the year 1980. Petitioner is living in Udhampur more than 30 years. Father of the petitioner had sold the said land to the grand father of the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no evidence that the said patta is forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per the panchayat record of the disputed patta is not available so this can not be inferred that said patta is forged. Civil suit is pending between the parties. So, FIR against the petitioner be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Md Ibrahhim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1695/2009 decided on 04.09.2009; (2) Chhuttan Lal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamli Devi & Ors. in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1903/2009; (3) Ganesh Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2654/2011 decided on 19.03.2012; (4) Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1695/2009 decided on 04.09.2009; (2) Chhuttan Lal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamli Devi & Ors. in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1903/2009; (3) Ganesh Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2654/2011 decided on 19.03.2012; (4) Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. in Criminal Appeals Nos.251-252 of 2020 decided on 10.02.2020 and (5) Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.933/2021 decided on 02.09.2021. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that petitioners and other persons hatched a conspiracy in creating forged patta. Deceased Chaganlal and Gajanand had created forged patta with connivance the then Sarpanch Babu Lal Kumawat and petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had purchased disputed land by knowingly that the said patta was forged. They further submitted that respondent had sought record of said patta but Gram Panchayat in its letter clearly stated that record of the said pattas are not available in the Gram Panchayat office. So, it clearly shows that petitioners had created the forged patta. They further submitted that petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta knew that the said patta was forged and they had filed the civil suit against the respondent and procure injunction by submitting forged patta before the trial court. They further submitted that FSL report also reveals that the then Sarpanch Babu Lal Kumawat has deliberately did signature on forged patta. They further submitted that disputed land was related to Noordin. He was tenant on disputed land. So, the patta could not be issued on 15.01.1977. They further submitted that after investigation, Investigating Agency has found proved offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC against the accused Gajanand and offence under Sections 420, 471, 120-B IPC against Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta and offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 177, 120-B IPC against the Babu Lal Kumawat. Charge- sheet is ready against the petitioners. So, petitions be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent. 10. It is admitted position that the disputed land does not belong to the complainant. Charge- sheet is ready against the petitioners. So, petitions be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent. 10. It is admitted position that the disputed land does not belong to the complainant. Complainant in his report clearly stated that he had possession over the land but he had not filed any titled documents regarding said land. Complainant had not challenged the patta dated 15.01.1977. A perusal of record reveals that patta was issued in the name of Gaurishankar on 15.01.1977 and the said land was purchased by Chaganlal and Gajanand and patta was renewed in their favour. After that, grand father of Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had purchased the said land on the name of their grand children. Civil suit was filed by the petitioners against the complainant in 2009 by relying of said patta. Complainant knew authenticity of the patta at the time of filing of the civil suit but when trial court had granted the temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta in the year 2018, after that, complainant had filed the present FIR with mala fide intention. Investigating Officer also had not fairly investigated the matter. As per FSL report, signatures pertains on patta are similar to signature of Babu Lal Kumawat. So, it can not be inferred that the said patta is forged. Investigation agency had not collected any evidence from Gram Panchayat that above mentioned patta was forged one. So, in my considered opinion continuance of proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process so the present misc. petitions deserve to be allowed and proceedings of FIR bearing No.321/2019, registered at Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Sikar and all subsequent investigation pursuant thereto to the extent of the qua petitioners are hereby quashed. 11. With the aforesaid, these criminal misc. petitions stand allowed. 12. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.