The central legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process, given the lack of evidence supporting the complainant's claim and the pending civil suit regarding the disputed land.

ORDER

1. Both the petitions filed by the petitioners are arising out of same FIR so both are decided simultaneously.

2. By these criminal misc. petitions, petitioners want to quash the FIR bearing No.321/2019, registered at Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Sikar for the Offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 196 and 120-B IPC.

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of these petitions are as under:-

4. Complainant had filed one complaint against the petitioners and other persons before Judicial Magistrate Srimadhopur, District Sikar and same was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and FIR was lodged against the petitioners and other persons bearing No.321/2019. In complaint, complainant stated that accused No.1 and 2 hatch a conspiracy with accused No.3 who was holding the post of Sarpanch at that time and created a forge patta and encroached land of 7 feet and also stated that said patta was issued in the name of Gaurishankar S/o Jainarayan Sharma. After that, said patta was renewed in the name of Chaganlal and Gajanand. Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had purchased this land knowingly that the said patta was forged. Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta had filed a civil suit against the complainant by relying on forged patta and got injunction in their favour. So, these persons be punished under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchaser of the land. At the time of purchase, they were minor and the said land was purchased by their grand father-Dev Karanji. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that being a minor, petitioners were not able to enter into the valid contract. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the present FIR was lodged after inordinate delay of 39 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that petitioners had filed a civil suit regarding permanent injunction in the year 2009 and temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners in 2018. After that, complainant had lodged the present FIR in the year 2019 with mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that complainant had not challenged the patta issued in the year 1977. The said patta was renewed in the name of Chaganlal and Gajanand in 1980. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that complainant had no locus standi to file the present FIR because as per FIR, he stated that he had possession of disputed land but he had not filed any titled documents regarding this land. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that previously in this matter, negative final report was filed. After that, complainant by way of political pressure got investigation changed. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that FSL report has received in this case in which signatures on patta are similar to the signature of Babu Lal Kumawat. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the civil suit is pending between the parties. Genuineness of the patta is to be determined by the civil court. So, the present FIR against the petitioners be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Gajanand has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta and submitted that disputed land was purchased by his father in the year 1980. Petitioner is living in Udhampur more than 30 years. Father of the petitioner had sold the said land to the grand father of the petitioners Mohanlal Gupta and Bajrang Lal Gupta. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no evidence that the said patta is forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per the panchayat record of the disputed patta is not available so this can not be inferred that said patta is forged. Civil suit is pending between the parties. So, FIR against the petitioner be