ORDER : 1. Both the criminal misc. petitions arise out of common F.I.R., hence, both are being decided by this common order. 2. By filing both the criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioners have prayed to quash the impugned F.I.R. No.970/2016 dated 21.11.2016 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur East for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/non-petitioner lodged an F.I.R. No.970/2016 dated 21.11.2016 at Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur East for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC to the effect that the accused-petitioners want to grab the land/way by preparing forged pattas of Plot No.C-41/D and C-41/E with the aid of forged sale agreements. The complainant/non- petitioner also stated in the impugned F.I.R. that the Plot No.B-40 never remained in existence and even then the petitioners made forged and fabricated pattas and grabbed the land. After investigation, the Police submitted Final Negative Report No.599/2017 dated 20.12.2017 before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. On the aforesaid final negative report, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainant on 22.12.2017 regarding accepting of Final Negative Report. In the meanwhile, accused-petitioner- Ramesh Chand Gurjar filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6143/2016 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench Jaipur, in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated22.12.2016 directed not to take coercive steps against him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner- Ramesh Chand Gurjar in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6143/2016 submitted that the impugned FIR is against the equity, natural justice and hence, is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar had purchased the Plots No. C-41/D, C-41/E and B-40 from its allottee/ original owner and he has not fabricated any documents in his favour. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had purchased the Plot No. C-41-D from the mother of the non petitioner no.2, who is still the Director of Selfridge Institute Private Limited. The non petitioner no.2 has not disclosed the name of his mother in the FIR because the FIR is based on false and concocted facts and thus, he did not mention the name of his mother in the FIR. The non petitioner no.2 has not disclosed the name of his mother in the FIR because the FIR is based on false and concocted facts and thus, he did not mention the name of his mother in the FIR. The Plot No. C-41/E was also initially in the name of Selfridge Institute Private Limited and later on it was sold to accused kishan Lal and after that the petitioner purchased this plot from accused Kishan Lal through the registered sale deed. The JDA has also replaced the name of the petitioner in their list. As such the petitioner is legally owner of the Plot Nos. C-41/D and C- 41/E. Thus, the impugned FIR is based on false and baseless facts and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that the Plot No.B-40 of the said scheme was initially allotted to Raghuveer Singh and later on the petitioner purchased the same from him and the Society had transferred the patta in the name of petitioner and the society has issued new patta, site plan and possession letter in his favour. As such, the petitioner is the owner of the Plot No. B-40 of the scheme. It is also submitted that all the original pattas are having the signatures of the Office Bearers, the relatives of the non petitioner no.2, but in the FIR, no allegation has been made against the officer bearers of the Society, which shows the malafide intention of the non petitioner no.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the Society has prepared two lists of its member out of which one audited list sent to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and another list was kept in its office. The society made a mistake in the list at Serial No. 345 and 233 in which the name of Garg Hospital and Research Institute Private Limited has been shown. The society later on corrected the name at Serial No. 345 and the name of the petitioner and Plot No. B-40 was shown in their office list. But in the list which has been given to the Registrar Cooperative Society, the correction has not been made and in the garb of this list, the non-petitioner no.2 is trying to harass and humiliate the petitioner for which he has no right. But in the list which has been given to the Registrar Cooperative Society, the correction has not been made and in the garb of this list, the non-petitioner no.2 is trying to harass and humiliate the petitioner for which he has no right. It is also submitted that the non-petitioner no.2 himself said in the impugned FIR that the petitioner is trying to grab the land of a public way for which he has no proof, though, the petitioner is having all relevant documents in his favour and the non-petitioner no.2 is not having any locus standi to lodge the FIR against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the non-petitioner no.2 and his family members are land grabbing persons and they wants to grab the plot of the petitioner by lodging this FIR against the petitioner. Leanred counsel also submitted that prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that one member of the society namely; Rajkumar Sharma has also lodged an FIR against the non- petitioner no.2 in which specific allegation has been leveled against the non-petitioner no.2 that he is trying to grab the land of a public park. It also shows that the non-petitioner no.2 himself is a land grabbing person. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioners namely; Kishan Lal, Gopal Sharma & Shree Ram Sharma in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2837/2019 submitted that Ramesh Chand Gurjar had purchased the Plot Nos. C-41/D, and B-40 from its allottee /original owner and he has not fabricated any documents in his favour. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar had purchased the Plot No. C-41-D from the mother of the complainant who is still the Director of Selfridge Institute Private Limited. The complainant had not disclosed the name of his mother in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR is based on false and concocted facts and thus, he did not mention the name of his mother in the FIR. The complainant had not disclosed the name of his mother in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR is based on false and concocted facts and thus, he did not mention the name of his mother in the FIR. The Plot No. C- 41/E was also initially in the name of Selfridge Institute Private Limited and later on it was sold to petitioner No. 1 Kishan Lal and after that Ramesh Chand Gurjar purchased this plot from the petitioner Kishan Lal through the registered sale deed, as such Ramesh Chand Gurjar was legally owner of the Plot No. C-41/E, in which Petitioner No. 3 was the only witness in the sale agreement. Hence, no any offence has been committed by the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 regarding FIR No. 970/2016. Learned counsel further submitted that the Plot No.B-40 of the said scheme was initially allotted to Raghuveer Singh and later on Ramesh Chand Gurjar and Raghuveer Singh executed an agreement regarding plot no. B-40 and petitioner No. 3 is only the witness in the aforesaid agreement. Hence, no any offence is made out against the petitioner No. 3 but Police is inclined to harass the petitioner No. 3 and falsely roped in the matter. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was a bonafied purchaser of the Plot No. C-41-E and he purchased the said plot from Smt. Kesar Devi, who is mother of the complainant and at that time she was the Director of the Selfridge Institute Private Limited. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner No. 1 had paid amount of 3,10,000/-to the Selfridge Institute Private Limited and executed sale agreement according to legal procedure and, thereafter, Petitioner No. 1 sold Plot No. C-41-E to the petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar through registered sale deed dated 15.12.2015. In the light above mentioned facts the Petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the Plot No. C-41-E and he has the legal right to sale this plot to the other person. Learned counsel also submitted that prima facie no case is made out against the Petitioners because they have not committed any criminal offence. In the light above mentioned facts the Petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the Plot No. C-41-E and he has the legal right to sale this plot to the other person. Learned counsel also submitted that prima facie no case is made out against the Petitioners because they have not committed any criminal offence. It is also submitted that in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances no any offence has been committed by the petitioners but police inclined to roped them in false and fabricated FIR No. 970/2016 and harassed them without any reason and without committing offence. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsels appearing for the accused-petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the details as regards the alleged payment made through cheques by the accused petitioners in lieu of sale consideration clearly speaks that the said documents are forged and fabricated. He further submitted that the cheque numbers which are mentioned in the agreements to sale are the numbers of those cheques which were paid to the mother of the complainant for some other purposes. He further submitted that the cheque numbers in two agreements to sale are same which also speaks the forgery by the accuseds. He also submitted that the witnesses of the agreement to sale namely; Gopal Sharma and Shree Ram Sharma are also equally accountable as they have become the witnesses of the forged documents. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsels appearing for the accused-petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and minutely scanned and scrutinized the entire material made available to the Court. 8. The allegation against the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar (SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6143/2016) and Kishan Lal (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2837/2019) is that they have prepared the forged documents in their favour of the sale of the plots in question that are C-41/D, C-41/E and B-40 and on the basis of forged agreements to sale the plots in questions have been got transferred in their names. 9. It is also alleged that the petitioners Gopal Sharma and Shree Ram Sharma (in Petition No.2837/2019) are the witnesses of the alleged agreements to sale and they are the parts of the criminal conspiracy and thus equally accountable. 10. 9. It is also alleged that the petitioners Gopal Sharma and Shree Ram Sharma (in Petition No.2837/2019) are the witnesses of the alleged agreements to sale and they are the parts of the criminal conspiracy and thus equally accountable. 10. On scrutiny of the material made available on record, the Court finds that the plot No.C-41/D was originally allotted to Selfridge Institute Private Limited by Ramjipura Housing Cooperative Society Limited vide allotment order dated 15.06.1997. The Selfridge Institute Private Limited is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at B-1, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Jaipur and Smt. Kesar Devi, the mother of the present complainant was the authorized Director of the Selfridge Institute Private Limited. Smt. Kesar Devi, the authorized Director of the Selfridge Institute Private Limited vide agreement to sale dated 24.11.2000 has sold the plot No.C-41/D to the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar. The JDA vide its order dated 17.01.2014 on the basis of the applications and other relevant documents including the allotment letter, agreement to sale etc. has transferred/ substituted the name of the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar as the plot holder of Plot No.C-41/D. There is a document on record dated 22.01.2014 which speaks of that the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar has also obtained the electricity supply connection from the Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and he has also got a water supply connection from the Public Health & Engineering Department for which he has deposited the amount vide receipt dated 22.07.2015. 11. The another plot No. C-41/E was allotted by Ramjipura Housing Cooperative Society Limited vide allotment letter dated 15.06.1997 in the name of Selfridge Institute Private Limited. 12. The Authorized Director of the Selfridge Institute Private Limited Smt. Kesar Devi, the mother of the complainant vide agreement to sale dated 27.11.2000 sold out this plot to the accused petitioner Kishanlal. The JDA vide its order dated 24.01.2014 transferred / substituted the name of the accused petitioner Kishan Lal being the owner/ allottee of the plot No.C-41/E. The accused petitioner Kishan Lal vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.2015 sold out half share of plot No.C-41/E to the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar. The accused petitioner Kishan Lal vide registered sale deed dated 16.12.2015 further sold out the remaining half share of plot No.C-41/E to the petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar. The accused petitioner Kishan Lal vide registered sale deed dated 16.12.2015 further sold out the remaining half share of plot No.C-41/E to the petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar. After the accused petitioner Kishan Lal having executed the registered sale deed of the plot No.C- 41/E in favour of accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar, the JDA vide its order dated 06.01.2016 on the basis of the relevant documents including the original allotment letter, sale deeds etc., as referred to above, transferred/ substituted the name of the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar being the plot holder of plot No. C-41/E. 13. On further scrutiny of the material available on the record, this Court finds that Ramjipura Housing Cooperative Society Limited, Lal Bahadur Nagar vide allotment letter dated 06.03.1995 allotted the plot No. B-40 to one Raghuveer Singh. The original allottee of plot No.B-40 vide an agreement to sale dated 13.06.1995 agreed to sale the plot No.B-40 to the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar after having received the sale consideration amount. 14. In view of the aforesaid agreement to sale of the plot No.B-40 by the original allottee Raghuveer Singh in favour of accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar, the Ramjipura Housing Cooperative Society Limited issued a fresh order dated 21.06.1996 of the plot No.B-40 in favour of accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar as an allottee. 15. On making scrutiny of the documents filed by the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar (in petition No.6143/2016) along-with the application No.39158 dated 14.05.2019, the name of the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar has been substituted as the plot holder of plot No.B-40 by the JDA vide order dated 18.01.2018 after making due consideration by the JDA of the documents and the material submitted by the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar. The accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar has placed on record the proceedings of the JDA which clearly speak that the name of the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar has been substituted as the owner of the plot No.B-40 after due consideration by the JDA. 16. The accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar has placed on record the proceedings of the JDA which clearly speak that the name of the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar has been substituted as the owner of the plot No.B-40 after due consideration by the JDA. 16. The accused petitioners namely; Gopal Sharma and Shree Ram Sharma (in petition No.2837/2019) are the witnesses of the agreement to sale executed by the mother of the complainant in favour of accuseds Raghuveer Singh and Kishanlal and the allegation against them is of criminal conspiracy without there being any material placed on record that they have conspired with the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar and Kishan Lal in making forgery of the alleged documents. No evidence has come out during the course of investigation that the accused petitioners namely; Gopal Sharma and Shree Ram Sharma have any kind of prior meeting of mind with other co-accused persons. 17. Earlier on 24.01.2018 the counsel appearing for the complainant- private respondent submitted that the police after completion of the investigation in the matter has submitted the Final Negative Report. However, with the change of Investigating Officer under the orders of the Higher Authorities of the Police Department, the investigation was further carried out. As per the conclusion given in the factual report dated 01.04.2019 the complainant Dr. Kailash Chand Garg did not disclose any new facts during continuing the investigation and at one point of time the Final Negative Report was submitted. It has also been mentioned that the accuseds in their case have not submitted any documentary proof in their favour. As per the conclusion given in the factual report dated 01.04.2019 the complainant Dr. Kailash Chand Garg did not disclose any new facts during continuing the investigation and at one point of time the Final Negative Report was submitted. It has also been mentioned that the accuseds in their case have not submitted any documentary proof in their favour. As per the factual report dated01.04.2019 the Investigating Officer as quoted as under:- 1- ;g gS fd jkethiqjk gkmflax dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vh fy0 ,d jftLVMZ lfefr gS ftlls izca/k dk;Zdkj.kh esa uketn vkjksih jes'k pUn xqtZj dks fnukad 8-4-1996 dks lnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr gqvk Fkk blds i'pkr og fnukad 12-05-08 ,oa 11-10-13 dks Hkh loZlefr ls lapkyu e.My esa lfpo ds in ij fuokZfpr gqvk tks vkt Hkh mlh in ij dk;Zjr gSA 2- ;g gS fd IykV la[;k ,&26 yky cgknqj uxj esa ,d lkoZtfud efUnj gS ftls fnukad 26-09-1996 esa jkethiqjk gkmflax dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vh fy0 }kjk Hkxoku eaxys'oj ekuo lsok laLFkku ds uke 900 oxZxt Hkwfe vkoaVu fd;k x;k FkkA blds i'pkr lfefr }kjk gh efUnj ds ikl /keZ'kkyk ,oa vU; dejksa dk fuekZ.k djok;k x;k Fkk ftlesa uketn vkjksih jes'k pUn xqtZj dks laLFkku dk;Zdkj.kh }kjk ifjokj lfgr j[kok;k x;k Fkk rFkk ogh lfefr dk dk;kZy; lapkfyr FkkA uketn vkjksih jes'k pUn xqtZj us nkSjkus vuqla/kku crk;k fd efUnj esa esjs }kjk dCtk ugha fd;k x;k gSA uketn vkjksih }kjk ftu dejksa esa ifjokj lfgr fuokl dj jgk Fkk og ifjlj [kkyh dj fn;k x;k gSA ysfdu ftl dejs esa lfefr dk dk;Z lapkfyr Fkk mldk rkyk rksM+us o ,oa lkeku [kqnZ cwnZ dj fn;k tkus ds laca/k esa uketn vkjksih }kjk iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj lfdZy ij izdj.k la[;k 595@2017 /kkjk 457] 380 Hkk-n-l- iathc) djok;k x;k gS tks tSj vuqla/kku gSA o uketn vkjksih ds i{k esa IykWV la[;k ,&26 yky cgknqj ds laca/k esa U;k;ky; vfr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ,oa egkuxj eftLV?sV iwoZ }kjk fcuk fof/kd izfdz;k viuk;s tkus ds csn[ky u djus ,oa vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk vkns'k tkjh fd;s gq;s gSaA 3- ;g gS fd Lo- Jh lqokyky xxZ tks eqdnek eqLrxhl dk firk gS us cgSfl;r mik/;{k jkethiqjk gkmflax dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vh fy0 t;iqj ds }kjk o"kZ 1997 esa lSYQfjt bLVhV~;wV izk0 fy0 ds uke Hkw[k.M la[;k lh&41 {ks=Qy 5231 oxZxt dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k FkkA tks lfefr }kjk o"kZ 1999 esa t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa izLrqr lnL; lwph esa dze la[;k 331 ij vafdr gSA blds i'pkr lfefr ds lnL; }kjk fojks/k djus ij lfefr }kjk fnukad 20-06-1997 dks ,d le>kSrk fy[kk x;kA ftlds vk/kkj ij dEiuh us 5231 oxZxt Hkwfe esa ls 2481 oxZxt Hkwfe ikdZ ds fy, ljs.Mj dj nh xbZ rFkk 'ks"k 2750 oxZxt Hkwfe esa dEiuh ds uke vyx&vyx 6 Hkw[k.M dze'k% lh&41] lh&41,] lh&41ch] lh&41lh] lh&41Mh] lh&41bZ ds vkoaVu i= izkIr dj fy;s gS lSYQfjt bLVhV~;wV izk0 fy0 ds funs'kd ifjoknh MkW0 dSyk'k xxZ ds firk Jh lqokyky o ekW Jherh dslj nsoh FkhA ;g rF; ifjoknh MkW0 dSyk'k xxZ ds firk Jh lqokyky ds le>kSrk i= ls Hkh rkbZn gksrh gSA le>kSrk i= 05 :i;s ds LVkEi ij ewfrZc 'kqnk gSA 4- ;g gS fd uketn vkjksih jes'k pUn xqtZj }kjk Hkw[k.M la[;k lh&41&Mh ;kstuk yky cgknqj uxj ;wfuV uEcj 2 dks ifjoknh MkW0 dSyk'k xxZ dh ekW Jherh dslj nsoh ls fnukad 24-01-2000 dks tfj;s fodz; i= ds 2-10 yk[k :i;s esa dz; fd;k x;k FkkA fodz; i= 100 :i;s ds LVkEi ij ewfrZc fd;k x;k FkkA ftlesa 10 gtkj :i;s uxn rFkk 2 yk[k dks ,d pSd la[;k 187099 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k 'kk[kk ekyoh; uxj dk fn;k x;k Fkk ftldk Hkqxrku cSad ls izkIr fjdkWMZ ds eqrkfcd ifjoknh ds firk lqokyky ds [kkrk la[;k 7767 esa tek gqvk gSA mDr IykV dk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 17-01-2014 dks lnL;rk lwfp esa jes'kpUn xqtZj dk uke izfr LFkkiu dj fn;k x;k gSA fodz; i= 100 :i;s ds LVkEi ij ewfrZc fd;k gqvk gS tks eqrkfcd LVkEi jftLVj ds lSYQfjt bLVhV~;wV izk0 fy0 uke ls dz; 'kqnk gSA 5- ;g gS fd Hkw[k.M la[;k lh 41 bZ dks Jh fd'kuyky }kjk tfj;s fodz; i= ds ifjoknh MkW0 dSyk'k xxZ dh ekW Jherh dslj nsoh ls fnukad 27-01-2000 dks 03%10 yk[k :i;s esa dz; fd;k x;k FkkA ftldk Hkqxrku 10 gtkj :i;s uxj rFkk 03 yk[k :i;s dk ,d pSd la[;k 187100 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k 'kk[kk ekyoh; uxj t;iqj dk jes'kpUn xqtZj ls fnyok;k x;k Fkk ftl jkf'k dk Hkqxrkuk Hkh cSad ls izkIr fjdkWMZ ds eqrkfcd ifjoknh MkW0 dSyk'k xxZ ds firk lqokyky ds [kkrk la[;k 7765 esa tek gqvk gSA mDr Hkw[k.M dk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 24-01-2014 dks lnL;rk lwph esa fd'kuyky dk uke izfrLFkkiu dj fn;k x;k gSA fodz; i= 100 :i;s ds LVkEi ij ewfrZc fd;k gqvk gS tks eqrkfcd LVkEi jftLVj ds lSYQfjt bLVhV~;wV izk0 fy0 uke ls dz;'kqnk gSA blds i'pkr mDr Hkw[k.M dks jes'kpUn xqtZj }kjk fnukad 16-12-2015 dks fd'ku yky xqtZj ls tfj;s jftLV?h ?z; fd;k x;k gSA ftldk Hkh t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 06-01-2016 dks lnL;rk lwph esa jes'k pUn xqtZj dk uke izfrLFkkiu dj fn;k x;k gSA 6- ;g gS fd Hkw[k.M la[;k ch&40 dks lfefr }kjk fnukad 06-03-1995 dks j?kqohj flag ds uke vkoafVr fd;k x;k FkkA ftl jes'k pUn xqtZj }kjk fnukad 08-06-1995 dks tfj;s fodz; i= ds Jh j?kqohj flag ls xokg xksiky fcgkjh 'kekZ ,oa Jhjke 'kekZ ds le{k 90 gtkj :i;s esa dz; fd;k x;k FkkA blds i'pkr j?kqohj flag uke ds vkoaVu i= dks jes'kpUn xqtZj }kjk lfefr ls le{k ljs.Mj dj vius uke ls fnukad 21-06-1996 dks vkoaVu i= tkjh djok fy;k x;k] lfefr dh vkfMV frfFk fnukad 01-04-1998 ls fnukad 30-03-1999 rd dh lnL; lwph esa dze la[;k 345 ij jes'kpUn xqtZj dk uke vafdr gS rFkk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh dk;kZy; fVIi.kh esa Hkh IykV dk vadu fd;k gqvk gSA 7- ;g gS fd jes'kpUn xqtZj }kjk dz; 'kqnk Hkw[k.M la[;k ch&40 dks ;kstuk Ldhe u01 yky cgknqj uxj dk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa vius uke izfr LFkkiu djokus ckcr vkosnu fd;k tkus ij t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 07-11-16 dks lwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh ysfdu ifjoknh MkW0 dSyk'k xxZ }kjk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds le{k mDr Hkw[k.M ds laca/k esa fnukad 18-10-16 dks vkifRr nk;j fd;s tkus ij t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ,oa jftLV?kj ¼lgdkfjrk½ }kjk lkjHkwr rF; is'k djus gsrq lquokbZ fnukad 04-11-16] 15-11-16] 22-11-16] 15-12-16] 30-03-17] 22-08-17] 12-09-17] 06-12-17 fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ ysfdu ifjoknh }kjk dksbZ rF; is'k ugha fd;s x;s rFkk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] iazlhiy LdsV?h dkWijsfVo foHkkx] fMIVh jftLV?kj dkWijsfVo t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k rFkk vkj],l] pkSgku fMIVh jftLV?kj dkWijsfVo t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks ikVhZ cukrs gq;s ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; jktLFkku t;iqj [k.M ihB ds le{k ,l-ch-flfoy fjV fifV'ku la[;k 17748@16 is'k dh xbZ ftls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fMLikst dj fn;k x;k] o t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds u;s vf/kdkjh }kjk lquokbZ djus ds vkns'k iznku fd;s x;sA ifjoknh }kjk mi jftLV?kj ¼lgdkfjrk½ t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks fnukad 22-11-16 dks izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k x;k fd eSus tks Hkw[k.M la[;k ch&40 ds laca/k esa vkiRrh ntZ djk;h Fkh mlesa U;k; ugha feyus dh mEehn ugha gksus ds dkj.k Fkkuk tokgj lfdZy ij izdj.k la[;k 970@16 iathc) djok fn;k x;k gS bl dkj.k esjs }kjk ntZ vkifRr ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh tkosA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd ifjoknh ds ikl Hkw[k.M la[;k ch 40 ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA ;fn dksbZ lk{; gksrk rks t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds le{k nkSjkus lquokbZ is'k djrkA 8- izdj.k ds vkjksih Jh jes'kpUn xqtZj }kjk izdj.k gktk dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; jktLFkku t;iqj [k.M ihB ds le{k ,l-ch- fdzfeuy fel fifV'ku la[;k 6143@16 /kkjk 482 tk-QkS- is'k fd;k tkus ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfp ds fo#) dksbZ corecive step ugha ysus ckcr vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;sA 9- ;g gS fd ifjoknh us jes'kpUn xqtZj ds fo#) jkethiqjk x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr esa lfdz; izcU/k dk;Zdkfj.kh lnL; gksdj U;kl ds 02&03 yk[k :i;s gM+i djus dk vkjksi yxk;k gS bl laca/k esa ifjoknh dks fnukad 24-11-16] 28-11-16 dks lk{; xokg is'k djus ckcr uksfVl vUrxZr /kkjk 91@160 tk-QkS- dk fn;s tkus ds i'pkr Hkh lk{; xokg is'k ugha fd;s x;s FksA mijksDr rF;ks a ds vk/kkj ij ik;k x;k fd& MkW- dSyk'k xxZ }kjk fcuk fdlh rF;ksa ds ij euxwB dk ik;s tkus ij ,Q-vkj la[;k 599 fnukad 20-12-2017 fdrk dj fnukad 22-12-2017 dks U;k;ky; esa is'k dh xbZA 18. However, on further continuing the investigation by the different Investigating Officers under the orders of the Senior Authority of the Police Department, the factual report says that the allegations against the accused petitioners have been found to be proved. 19. The conclusion arrived at by one of the Investigating Officer, as referred in the factual report dated 01.04.2019, clearly speaks that the plots in questions have been transferred in the name of the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar under due process of law. The plots in questions that area C-41/D, C-41/E and B-40 have been finally transferred in the name of the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar by the JDA by separate orders after taking into consideration the material available on the record and the documentary evidence submitted by the concerned parties and after dealing with the objections submitted by the objectors. Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act provides a legal remedy to any person aggrieved by an order of the JDA to prefer an appeal or make a reference, if aggrieved by any action of the JDA, which is against his interest. The appeal or reference as per section 83 of the JDA Act can be filed before the JDA Tribunal. The orders passed by the JDA in favour of accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar could have been challenged by the complainant if he has any grievance but the complainant has never chosen the legal remedy available to him under the law. Section 83 of the JDA Act reads as under:- “83. Constitution of Tribunal. (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Tribunal for the purposes of this Act. (2) The Tribunal shall consist of one person who shall be an officer of the State Government and shall be paid such salary and allowances as may be determined by the State Government. (3) The State Government may, to assist the Tribunal, direct the Authority to appoint such number of servants and of such cadre as may be deemed necessary. (4) The expenses of the Tribunal shall be borne by the Authority. (5) The procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in deciding the appeals or disputes referred to it under this Act shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) The expenses of the Tribunal shall be borne by the Authority. (5) The procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in deciding the appeals or disputes referred to it under this Act shall be such as may be prescribed. (6) The Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in respect of hearing and deciding of an appeal or any dispute referred to it. (7) Except as otherwise provided, any dispute arising out of any provision of this Act may be referred to the Tribunal by the Authority. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto. (8)[ Except as otherwise provided,- (a) any person aggrieved by an order or notice of the Authority may file an appeal in the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of such order or notice to him; and (b) any person aggrieved by any threatened act or injury from the Authority affecting his rights may refer the dispute to the Tribunal with in thirty days of the communication or knowledge of such threatened act or injury;and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final] [Substituted by Rajasthan20 of 1991.]. As per the documents available on the record, the plots in questions were allotted to the original allottees way back in the year 1995-96 and thereafter the original allottees sold out the plots either to the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar or Kishanlal and then Kishan Lal also sold out the plot No.C-41/E to the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar, meaning-thereby, the petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar has purchased the plots from the original allottees either directly or indirectly and the same have been transferred way back in the year 2016. The mother of the complainant has sold out the plots by the agreement to sale way back in the year 2000 which are now alleged to be forged. The complainant has lodged the report now on 21.11.2016 without there being any explanation to the intervening period that why he kept mum. The mother of the complainant has sold out the plots by the agreement to sale way back in the year 2000 which are now alleged to be forged. The complainant has lodged the report now on 21.11.2016 without there being any explanation to the intervening period that why he kept mum. The complainant has also not come out with the satisfactory explanation that why his mother who was the authorized Director of the Company during her lifetime has not made any complaint as regards the allegations against the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar, which are now being made by the complainant. 20. The accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant Kailash Chandra Garg in the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (East), Jaipur Metropolitan, as regards the plots No.C-41/D, C-41/E and B-40. 21. Along-with the plaint, the petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar has also filed an application for temporary injunction which was numbered as 145/2019. The Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan vide order dated 16.07.2019 passed a temporary injunction order in favour of accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar that the complainant shall not dispossess the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar from the plots in questions without following the due process of law. Against the temporary injunction order dated 16.07.2019 the complainant Dr. Kailash Chand Garg preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.27/2019 before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2019 upholding the order of temporary injunction dated 16.07.2019. The aforesaid facts also speak that the civil dispute regarding the plots in questions i.e. C-41/D, C-41/E and B-40 is subjudice before the Civil Court. 22. This Court also comes across the fact that initially the Investigating Officer after making the investigation has proposed the Final Negative Report observing that the allegations of forgery have not been found to be proved against the accused petitioners. However, under the orders of the Senior Officers of the Police Department, the investigation has been transferred to some other Officer. The Investigating Officer has also not come out with the conclusion that the signatures of Kesar Devi, mother of the complainant Dr. Kailash Garg, are forged on the agreements, alleged to have been executed by her in favour of accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar and Kishan Lal. 23. The Investigating Officer has also not come out with the conclusion that the signatures of Kesar Devi, mother of the complainant Dr. Kailash Garg, are forged on the agreements, alleged to have been executed by her in favour of accused petitioner Ramesh Chand Gurjar and Kishan Lal. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has raised an issue that the agreements to sale alleged to have been executed by the mother of the complainant (Dr. Kailash Garg) bear the incorrect details about the cheques of alleged sale consideration which shows that the accused petitioners have committed the forgery. The JDA has transferred/ substituted the name of the accused petitioners being the plot holders of the plots in questions after making scrutiny of the material placed before the JDA and so also after taking into consideration the objections submitted by the concerned parties. If the complainant has any kind of grievance as regards the orders passed by the JDA then he has a remedy of appeal /reference before the JDA Tribunal which he has failed to avail. The complainant was having a remedy to challenge the orders of the JDA on the alleged incorrect details for sale consideration, if at all the seller i.e. the mother of the complainant has not received the sale consideration. The mother of the complainant who has executed the sale agreement, has never raised any such issue during her lifetime. 24. The law as regards quashing of the FIR is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , reported as, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in para 102, which is quoted as under:- “102. 24. The law as regards quashing of the FIR is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , reported as, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in para 102, which is quoted as under:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 25. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the complainant in-stead of a remedy available to him under the different Statutes including a remedy of appeal /reference under the JDA Act and civil suit under the CPC has tried to give criminal colour to the dispute between the parties of a civil nature. It is a well settled law that the proceedings which could be settled under the civil disputes, if given the criminal colour, are required to be deprecated and quashed. From the facts of the case it is quite clear that the dispute as regards the property, which was not raised during the lifetime of the mother of the complainant, the complainant is now trying to settle the same by pursuing the criminal proceedings by registering a criminal case against the accused petitioners. The accused petitioners namely; Gopal Sharma and Shree Ram Sharma are merely the witnesses of the agreement to sale and there is no evidence on record as regards the prior meeting of mind with the aid of conspiracy. From the facts given in detail of the case and the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) , the Court feels that the impugned criminal proceedings have been manifestly attended with mala fide and same are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and a with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 26. In view of the discussion made above, both the criminal misc. 26. In view of the discussion made above, both the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The FIR No. 970/2016 dated 21.11.2016 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur East for the offences punishable under sections 403, 406, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC is quashed and further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. 27. The findings and observations given in this order shall in no manner affect any proceedings initiated by any of the parties before any legal Forum except the proceedings in connection with the impugned FIR. 28. In view of the order passed in the main petitions, the said applications and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 29. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected case file.