Civil and criminal proceedings can coexist; the presence of criminal allegations justifies the continuation of criminal investigations despite ongoing civil litigation.

ORDER :

(Anil Kumar Upman, J.) :

1. These misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein for quashing FIR No.1341/2023 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur South for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of it.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur South alleging inter alia that there situated a piece of land in Khasra Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 24, measuring 8 hectares, Village Ganpatpura. It is alleged that on 10.07.2001, a succession and relinquishment deed was executed by co-accused Narani, Manbhar, Kamli, Gopali, Sita, Ganga, Shanti Devi (sisters of accused Harlal Choudhary) and Smt. Kesri Devi (mother of accused Harlal Choudhary) in favour of accused Harlal Choudhary and on the strength of this succession and relinquishment deed, on 24.07.2001, mutation was opened in the name of accused Harlal Choudhary. Thereafter, on 24.10.2003, an agreement to sell was entered between the accused-petitioner Harlal Choudhary and the complainant M/s Gaurav Pvt. Ltd. with respect to the afore-stated land. However, when the accused petitioner Harlal Choudhary failed to fulfill the contractual obligations, the respondent-complainant filed a civil suit for specific performance before the competent civil court, which finally came to be decreed in favour of the complainant company on 12.06.2018. However, the accused Harlal Choudhary, challenged the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2018 passed in favour of the complainant-company by way of filing civil first appeal (No.671/2018) before this Court, which is pending consideration till date. By interim order dated 08.08.2018, the execution of the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2018 has been stayed and both parties were directed to maintain status quo on the subject land. It is further alleged that the accused persons, who were all aware of the interim order of maintaining status quo on the subject land, hatched a conspiracy and in order to get the nature and ownership of the land in question changed, applied for conversion of land under Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 wherein co-accused Smt. Narani Devi, Smt Ganga, Smt. Kamli Devi, Smt. Manbhar, Smt. Gopali, Smt. Sita Gora, Smt. Shanti Devi, sisters of the petitioner Harlal Choudhary, made declarations that there is no issue or dispute with regard to land in question in any court of law.

3. It is also alleged that after entering into agreement to sell the land in question on 24.10.2003, the accused petitioner Harlal Choudhary entered into a collusive arrangement with other co-accused who are his sisters and mother and while keeping the complainant-company in dark, filed a collusive suit (No.160/2006) before learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur seeking cancellation of relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2001. The said suit was decided and decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.08.2006 on the basis of compromise entered between the parties i.e., Harlal, his sisters and mother wherein accused Harlal took a stand that he has no objection if the relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2001 is cancelled whereas the fact remains that the accused Harlal never disclosed regarding agreement to sell, executed by him in favour of the complainant company regarding the land in question, on the strength of relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2001, in the said civil suit for cancellation of relinquishment deed. It was further alleged that the accused persons also did not disclose before the learned civil court regarding pendency of civil suit, instituted by the complainant company for specific performance of contract in which, temporary injunction order for maintaining status quo on the subject land, had already been passed. After disposal of the suit for cancellation of relinquishment deed dated 10.07.2001, by play