Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Mangi Lal - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1709 of 2017
Decided On : 03-10-2017
QUASHING OF FIR - SECTION 295/34 IPC - CIVIL COURT DECREE IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER - RESPONDENT'S APPLICATIONS DISMISSED - FIR FILED AS COUNTERBLAST - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered against him for allegedly desecrating a religious place. The petitioner had obtained a civil court decree for possession of the land in question, and the respondent had filed applications before the civil court claiming a right to the land. The civil court dismissed the respondent's applications, and the respondent subsequently filed the FIR against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was filed as a counterblast to the civil proceedings, and that the respondent had no right to the land in question. The court also noted that the respondent had not challenged the civil court's orders before any higher court.
Issues: Whether the FIR was filed as a counterblast to the civil proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR was filed as a counterblast to the civil proceedings, and that the respondent had no right to the land in question. The court also noted that the respondent had not challenged the civil court's orders before any higher court. The court relied on the precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where the Supreme Court held that if an FIR is found to be a counterblast and the accused are protected by the orders of the civil court, then the criminal proceedings cannot be maintained.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and any other consequential proceedings.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated in pursuant to FIR (C.R. Case) No. 58/2017 dated 20.04.2017 registered at Police Station Sayla, District Jalore for the offence under Section 295/34 of IPC.
2. This Court has taken note of the order passed by the Civil Court upon an application of respondent No. 2 on 11.01.2017. The order categorically observes that the application filed by the respondent No. 2 Neta Ram regarding the plot in question was not maintainable after examining the patta brought on record by respondent No. 2 Neta Ram before the Civil Court dated 26.03.1990. Another application was moved by the respondent No. 2 which was also dismissed on 03.05.2017 as the learned civil court has refused to make any interference in the execution proceedings in favour of the respondent No. 2.
3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is the owner as per the civil court decree and no right on the said property accrued to anyone else.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown the version of the Sale Ameen dated 12.04.2017 whereby Sale Ameen along with police individuals has gone to the site for complying with the execution warrant but in the presence of the police personnel the respondents have not permitted the possession and adverse law and order situation was created by them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 31.05.2008, the said land was purchased by the present petitioner and suit was filed for possession and permanent injunction on the same land on 04.02.2015. The notices were issued to the respondents and were served upon them. After a decree was passed in favour of the petitioner, the execution applications were filed before the learned Civil Judge, Jalore and the respondent No. 2 was also an applicant before the learned Civil Court. The two consecutive orders mentioned above dated 11.01.2017 and 03.05.2017 were passed by the learned Civil Court against the respondent No. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the specific orders were passed by the civil court after passing a decree during execution against the respondent No. 2 by dismissing his applications and the respondent No. 2 has not chosen to challenge those orders before any higher Court and has rather as a counterblast filed the present FIR on 20.04.2017 resulting into FIR bearing No. 58/2017 registered at Police Station Sayla, District Jalore for the offence under Section 295/34 of IPC.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has shown the patta dated 26.03.1990 and has argued that those pattas should have been taken on record by the investigating officer as it created a right in favour of the respondent No. 2.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has shown the case diary and on the face of the investigation report, it is clear that investigating officer has not disputed the ownership of the present petitioner regarding the land in question and has in fact shown the documents whereby the Superintendent of Police, Jalore has written letters to the concerned Police Station for providing appropriate police contingent for executing the possession warrant in pursuance of the execution proceedings and the decree of the civil court passed earlier in favour of the petitioner.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor has also shown the letter issued by the Gram Panchayat on original whereby there is a specific denial of any such patta which is claimed by the respondent No. 2.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor however, has justified the FIR and the investigation on account of the fact that even if the petitioner was the owner then also he was not supposed to take law and order in his own hands.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that specific decree regarding the land in question is in favour of the petitioner. This Court has also ca
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
