JUDGMENT :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner is an accused in FIR No.261/2022 registered at the behest of respondent No.2 with Fatehpur Kotwali Police Station in District Sikar for offences under Sections 420 , 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. The petitioner has sought for quashment of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that a civil suit pending before the Competent Court has been sought to be given a colour of criminal litigation.

3. It is not controverted that the FIR referred Khasra No.272 area 10 Bighas 19 Biswa, Khasra No.273 area 5 Bighas 10 Biswa in the town Fatehpur is recorded in the name of Sadiq son of Bhura in the khatedari record.

4. Respondent No.2 asserts that said Sadiq was grandfather of respondent No.2 and after his death, the property devolved on his sons and daughters, namely Mohammad Ishak, Mohammad Shabbir, Abdul Hamid, Mohammad Farooq and Maiguna. Respondent No.2 is one of the son of Late Mohammad Ishak. In the year 2014 certain part of the aforesaid land was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India and compensation was paid to the heirs of Sadiq. On 07.10.2022, a partition took place in the family of respondent No.2 and the property was allotted as per details made in Para-2 of the petition vide decree in Suit No.82/2022.

5. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner had already purchased those plots through registered sale deed dated 10.06.1967 from Sadiq himself. When respondent No.2 and his family members came to know about the claim of the petitioner brought a civil Suit No.74/2022 under Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the petitioner for declaration that registered sale deed dated 19.06.1967 is null and void and for injunction. The civil Court has passed the order directing the parties to maintain status quo.

6. In the impugned FIR, allegation is that forgery was committed in creation of the registered sale deed dated 10.06.1967.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that narration of the facts aforesaid makes out a case of pure civil dispute. There is presumption of genuineness of 30 years old document and if anyone challenged, as in the present case respondent No.2 has challenged, the burden lies on respondent No.2 to establish its ungenuineness, which is already to be decided in the pending civil suit. Therefore, criminal proceeding vide impugned FIR is an abuse of the process of law.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that pendency of civil proceeding is no bar for prosecution in criminal side, if ingredients of the offences are made out.

9. Evidently, 30 years old registered document has been challenged as forged by the informant. This fact would be considered by the Competent Civil Court whether that document was brought into existence on 10.06.1967 itself and if it was in existence on the date of registration itself, whether the real person had signed document or there was any impersonation and only after adjudication on these points, the necessary decree would be passed. The burden to prove the aforesaid facts is on the complainant to rebut the presumption of genuineness of more than 30 years old registered documents. In a criminal proceeding, bona-fide claim of the petitioner through registered sale deed cannot be gone into. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in the criminal side.

10. Accordingly, it is held that continuance of the impugned FIR and subsequent proceeding would be an abuse of the process of law.

11. Hence, the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.