The legal principle established is that a decree affirming succession rights and upholding an adoption deed can render a subsequent FIR an abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of FIR No.259/2012 dated 12.10.2012, P.S. Rohat, District Pali, offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.

2. The basic allegation against the present petitioner is that the petitioner with a conspiracy got the land of Bhanwar Lal, who was the brother of the complainant and further sold it without any authority. The allegation in the FIR was that the present petitioner forged adoption deed, whereby his son had been shown to have been adopted by Late Bhanwar Lal and Kisturi Devi. The crux of the matter came on to the adoption deed and since the adoption deed was upheld then obviously Bhanwar Lal and Kisturi Devi would have the successor of the property in question in the name of Jagdish.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the competent court vide order dated 30.09.2011 passed a decree regarding the Jagdish being the only first class heir of the Late Bhanwar Lal and Kisturi Devi and upheld the adoption deed. The challenge to the decree dated 30.09.2011 also came to an end when complainant arrived at a compromise and compromise order was passed on 31.03.2013. The compromise order was subsequently challenged by the complainant but the same could not be sustained. However, this Court in another proceedings granted the complainant liberty to proceed a fresh in a civil suit.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not the inheritor or the successor or the legal heir of the deceased couple Bhanwar Lal and Kisturi Devi. Learned counsel for the respondent also stated that the complainant are three sisters and the only inheritors of the property in question. Learned counsel for the respondent further stated that the appeal came to an end because of compromise. Once the compromise was not acted upon by the petitioner, then he could not get the benefit of the compromise.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that that on this date, the decree dated 30.09.2011 passed in revenue case No.48/2011 by the competent court is holding the field and as per the decree, Jagdish is the son of the present petitioner and is a lawful successor and first class heir and adopted son of Bhanwar Lal and Kisturi Devi. Since and until, the order dated 30.09.2011 is holding the field and the same has been reaffirmed by the compromise appellate order dated 21.01.2013, then the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

6. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.259/2012 registered at Police Station Rohat is quashed and set aside, along with all the consequential proceedings.