Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and other - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8042 of 2021
Decided on : 23-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Saini for Mr. I.R. Saini.
For the Respondents: Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, P.P., Mr. Ashindra Gautam, Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Mr. Bhartesh Joshi, Mr. Shailendra Singh Balwada.
No cognizable offence was disclosed in the FIR, which was deemed an abuse of process, as the allegations did not establish deceit or false documentation.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B - Quashment of FIR - The petitioner challenged the FIR alleging no cognizable offence disclosed, asserting a civil dispute was mischaracterized as criminal due to political rivalry. The court found no evidence of deception or false documents, leading to the conclusion that the FIR was an abuse of process. (Paras 2, 10, 11)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that to establish offences under IPC, there must be clear evidence of deceit and no one can transfer a better title than they possess. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a local politician, sold land recorded in the name of a temple trust, leading to an FIR alleging fraud and forgery by a rival political faction.
Findings of Court:
The FIR was quashed as it disclosed no cognizable offence, thereby preventing abuse of the legal process.
Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and the appropriateness of criminal proceedings in a civil dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR lacked sufficient grounds to establish any criminal wrongdoing, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence for the alleged offences.
Result: FIR quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No. 480/2021 registered with Pilani Police Station in the District of Jhunjhunu for the offence Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
2. The challenge is on the ground that on bare perusal of the FIR, no cognizable offence is disclosed especially the offences for which the FIR was registered. A pure civil dispute has been sought to be given colour of criminal litigation for ulterior motive to wreak vengeance for political rivalry. Submission is that the petitioner is a Parshad and the wife of the complainant is the Chairman of the Nagar Palika belonging to different political ideologies.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that Khasra No. 990, area 11.24 hectare is recorded in the revenue records in the name of Ramdwara Ji Temple Trust. The petitioner sold 200 yards of the aforesaid khasra through registered sale deed dated 14.02.2002 to one Prem Prakash. The petitioner further sold another part of the same plot to Dilbagh Singh. Since the informant is a social activist, he came forward to bring the criminal law in motion for appropriate inquiry for the aforesaid cognizable offence. The fact that the aforesaid khasra is recorded in the name of Ramdwara Ji Temple Trust came to the notice of the informant when he got information under Right to Information Act.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the said revenue record at Annexure A/2 would reveal that the Jamabandi was made in the year 2018 as regular to show that the aforesaid khasra is recorded in the name of Ramdwara Ji Temple Trust. A Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 108/2019 was filed by some other persons against some other individuals before this Court alleging therein that respondents of the case have encroached upon the aforesaid khasra No. 990 and 995 belonging to a temple Shri Ramdwara(Rambara). Ramdwara was impleaded in the aforesaid Writ Petition and it was submitted on behalf of Ramdwara before the Court that there was no encroachment over the aforesaid land nor any illegal construction was made after encroaching over the land of the temple. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.07.2021 with the following observations:
"1. This DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) has been filed seeking directions to remove the encroachment made by respondent nos.5 to 12 over the johad situated on the land of Khasra No. 990 and 995 belonging to a temple Shri Ramdwara(Rambara) at village Bad Chowk, Pilani, Tehsil Surajgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
The application for impleadment filed on behalf of Shri Ramdwara (Rambara) i.e recorded tenant of the land in question is allowed being a necessary party in the matter.
2. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the subject land is a khatedaari land entered in the name of temple Shri Ramdwara (Rambara) but this is a gair mumkin johad which is used for grazing cows by the villagers. The private respondents have encroached the land by making constructions over it. The Government authorities are not taking effective steps in spite of the repeated requests by the petitioner to remove the encroachment. Therefore, the present PIL petition deserves to be allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the newly impleaded party who is the khatedaar tenant of the subject land submits that there is no encroachment over the land. All the constructions are legal and do not come within the purview of encroachment. The petitioners have got no locus standi to file the petition. The petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. On bare perusal of the petition as well as the material made available on record, we find that the subject land is a khatedaari land recorded in the name of temple Shri Ramdwara(Rambara) who has got every right to take necessary legal recourse if any illegal construction or encroachment is made over the subject land. The issue of alleged encroachment has also been dealt with in various administrative and judi
