Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2139 (RAJ)

Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2023-11-23

BIRENDRA KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No. 480/2021 registered with Pilani Police Station in the District of Jhunjhunu for the offence Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. The challenge is on the ground that on bare perusal of the FIR, no cognizable offence is disclosed especially the offences for which the FIR was registered. A pure civil dispute has been sought to be given colour of criminal litigation for ulterior motive to wreak vengeance for political rivalry. Submission is that the petitioner is a Parshad and the wife of the complainant is the Chairman of the Nagar Palika belonging to different political ideologies. 3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that Khasra No. 990, area 11.24 hectare is recorded in the revenue records in the name of Ramdwara Ji Temple Trust. The petitioner sold 200 yards of the aforesaid khasra through registered sale deed dated 14.02.2002 to one Prem Prakash. The petitioner further sold another part of the same plot to Dilbagh Singh. Since the informant is a social activist, he came forward to bring the criminal law in motion for appropriate inquiry for the aforesaid cognizable offence. The fact that the aforesaid khasra is recorded in the name of Ramdwara Ji Temple Trust came to the notice of the informant when he got information under Right to Information Act. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the said revenue record at Annexure A/2 would reveal that the Jamabandi was made in the year 2018 as regular to show that the aforesaid khasra is recorded in the name of Ramdwara Ji Temple Trust. A Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 108/2019 was filed by some other persons against some other individuals before this Court alleging therein that respondents of the case have encroached upon the aforesaid khasra No. 990 and 995 belonging to a temple Shri Ramdwara(Rambara). Ramdwara was impleaded in the aforesaid Writ Petition and it was submitted on behalf of Ramdwara before the Court that there was no encroachment over the aforesaid land nor any illegal construction was made after encroaching over the land of the temple. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.07.2021 with the following observations: "1. Ramdwara was impleaded in the aforesaid Writ Petition and it was submitted on behalf of Ramdwara before the Court that there was no encroachment over the aforesaid land nor any illegal construction was made after encroaching over the land of the temple. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.07.2021 with the following observations: "1. This DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) has been filed seeking directions to remove the encroachment made by respondent nos.5 to 12 over the johad situated on the land of Khasra No. 990 and 995 belonging to a temple Shri Ramdwara(Rambara) at village Bad Chowk, Pilani, Tehsil Surajgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. The application for impleadment filed on behalf of Shri Ramdwara (Rambara) i.e recorded tenant of the land in question is allowed being a necessary party in the matter. 2. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the subject land is a khatedaari land entered in the name of temple Shri Ramdwara (Rambara) but this is a gair mumkin johad which is used for grazing cows by the villagers. The private respondents have encroached the land by making constructions over it. The Government authorities are not taking effective steps in spite of the repeated requests by the petitioner to remove the encroachment. Therefore, the present PIL petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the newly impleaded party who is the khatedaar tenant of the subject land submits that there is no encroachment over the land. All the constructions are legal and do not come within the purview of encroachment. The petitioners have got no locus standi to file the petition. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. On bare perusal of the petition as well as the material made available on record, we find that the subject land is a khatedaari land recorded in the name of temple Shri Ramdwara(Rambara) who has got every right to take necessary legal recourse if any illegal construction or encroachment is made over the subject land. The issue of alleged encroachment has also been dealt with in various administrative and judicial proceedings. Therefore, we are not inclined to issue any direction as sought for and accordingly the petition is dismissed." 5. Evidently, Ramdwara Trust in the year 2019 was specific that there was no encroachment on the land of Ramdwara. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Therefore, we are not inclined to issue any direction as sought for and accordingly the petition is dismissed." 5. Evidently, Ramdwara Trust in the year 2019 was specific that there was no encroachment on the land of Ramdwara. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nikhil Saini submits that another FIR No. 63/2006 was lodged against the petitioner on 13.12.2006 alleging therein that the petitioner was a trespasser over plot No. 990. The Magistrate took cognizance under Section 447 IPC against the petitioner, however the cognizance order was challenged in Cr. Revision No. 62/2007 and was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge on 30.05.2007 considering the claim of the petitioner as recorded tenant in respect of the transferred land. The said order has got finality. Contention is that Nagar Palika records would reveal that the petitioner was in possession of the land from the time of his ancestors. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashindra Gautam contends that scope of interference with the FIR disclosing cognizable offence is very limited, this Court cannot enter into a roving inquiry and weigh the trustworthiness of the allegation. 8. The law is well settled that no one can transfer a better title than he had. Assuming the prosecution case as it is, the persons cheated in the transaction are purchasers for consideration from the petitioner and not the Ramdwara Temple or the complainant of this case, therefore, offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted on the complaint of the present complainant as the complainant or Ramdwara Trust was never induced to deliver any property to any person by playing deceit. Similarly, to attract other offences alleged especially forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC, there must be making of a false document as defined under Section 464 IPC which reads as under: "464. Making a false document. Similarly, to attract other offences alleged especially forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC, there must be making of a false document as defined under Section 464 IPC which reads as under: "464. Making a false document. - [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- First -Who dishonestly or fraudulently- (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly -Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]" 9. There is no averment that the petitioner had made any false document said to be signed by the real authority. In the case on hand, signature of transferor or transferee is not disputed on the sale deed nor the transferee has come up with allegation of forgery etc. Since no case of making of a false document is made out, the rest of the offences are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In the case on hand, signature of transferor or transferee is not disputed on the sale deed nor the transferee has come up with allegation of forgery etc. Since no case of making of a false document is made out, the rest of the offences are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Evidently, the FIR discloses no cognizable offence said to be committed by the petitioner against the informant or Ramdwara Temple, therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance to the impugned FIR would be an abuse of the process of law. 11. Hence, the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings stand hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.