The court has the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against parties involved in forgery and misrepresentation, but it may decline to do so if it is not in the interest of justice.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - The present writ petition has come up before the Court for disposal of various pending applications.

2. The writ petition was filed on 15/2/2013 aggrieved against the judgment dated 12/12/2012 passed by Board of Revenue (Annex.8) and judgment dated 16/6/2007 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority (Annex.7).

3. In the petition, besides the State, three authorities i.e. Board of Revenue, Revenue Appellate Authority, Sub. Divisional Officer, Jodhpur Development Authority, Vinod Bohra and Smt. Rami Devi Bhattad have been impleaded as party respondents.

4. From the order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annex.8), it is apparent that it was only U.I.T., State of Rajasthan and Vinod Bohra, who were parties, though no reason has been indicated in the writ petition for impleading respondent no.7 Rami Devi Bhattad as party respondent, in para 16 of the writ petition, a reference has been made that respondent no.6 Vinod Bohra has sold the subject plot to respondent no. 7 & copy of the registered sale deed has been produced as Annex.10.

5. Besides the above, it is also noticed that while the appellants before the Board of Revenue were Smt. Savitri, Om Prakash and Govind Prakash only and one Jeti Bai was also a party respondent, the present writ petition has been filed by two additional petitioners Smt. Manju Jalani and Smt. Krishna, whereas name of Smt. Jeti Bai has been deleted from the array of parties. In the petition, there is no indication whatsoever regarding the basis for such inclusion and/or exclusion.

6. It appears that on 8/1/2013, prior to filing of the writ petition, on behalf of Vinod Bohra, caveat was filed though counsel Mr. S.D.Purohit supported by Vakalatnama given by said Vinod Bohra. Further it appears that on 5/3/2013,when the matter came up before the Court for the first time, on the same day i.e. 5/3/2013, Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 7 Rami Devi also came to be filed by counsel Mr. Purohit and on 5/3/2013 a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:

"Heard learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel Mr. S.D.Purohit appears for the respondent nos. 6 and 7.

Issue show cause notice to the remaining respondent no. 1 to 5. Copy of this order may also be sent to the respondents along-with notice. Rule is made returnable within four week. "Dasti". Direct service permitted.

Counsel to file proof of service on the respondents, and not merely proof of despatch of notices, before the next date positively. In the alternative, affidavit of the counsel/party of compliance to the extent made, be filed.

In the meanwhile, status quo with regard to plots in question, as it exists today, shall be maintained."

7. Thereafter, on 14/7/2014, reply on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 was filed through counsel Mr. Purohit. The reply was supported by affidaivt of respondent no. 7 Rami Devi Bhattad. Whereafter, the matter remained pending without any progress.

8. Second stay application was filed on 2/5/2017 seeking further stay. On 1/6/2017 this Court passed the following order on second stay application:

"Time was prayed for by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 on 17/5/2017. Neither the reply has been filed nor the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 is present despite matter being called out twice.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that despite grant of interim order by this Court to maintain status quo, the respondents were raising constructions at the site and have placed on record certain photographs.

In the circumstances of the case, wherein already a stay has been granted by this Court and the respondents are seeking to raise construction in defiance of the said order, the respondents are restrained from raising further construction and it is directed that status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties till further order."

9. It is the passing of the above order dated 1/6/2017, which triggered a spate of activities and applicati