The court quashed the FIR as the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence and were deemed a misuse of the legal process, given the existence of pending civil suits.

ORDER :

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the accused/petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. No.167/2021 (Annexure-1) registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, District Kota City for offences punishable under Sections 427, 380, 354, 354-D & Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) &

3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and all the consequential proceedings.

2. Mr. G.S. Bapna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Banwari Singh, Advocate appearing for the accused/petitioners submits that he does not want to press the petition qua Petitioner No.3-Vipin Barthuniya.

3. In view of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, qua petitioner No.3-Vipin Barthuniya, is dismissed as not pressed.

4. The present criminal miscellaneous petition is now being considered on merits qua petitioners No.1 and 2, Ashok Yogi &Pradeep Kumar Suman.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been implicated in this case on false and fabricated facts. He also submits that the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Solanki (now deceased), who was holding a will in his favour with regard to the premises in question, executed a rent deed (Annexure-2) on 26.06.2021 in favour of petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi to which petitioner No.2-Pradeep Kumar Suman, is a witness.

6. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that petitioner No.1- Ashok Yogi is in possession of the property in question on the basis of the rent deed executed by Dinesh Kumar Solanki.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that there are no allegations against the petitioners of preparing any forged will. It is also submitted that co-accused Dinesh Kumar Solanki, in whose favour, there was a will of the premises in question, filed a suit on 11.08.2021, for declaration and permanent injunction. Thereafter, the complainant-respondent had lodged the impugned F.I.R. on 25.08.2021, quoting an incident of 14.08.2021, mentioning therein false and fabricated facts with regard to the allegations against the petitioners.

8. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the complainant/respondent herself had filed a suit on 11.01.2024, with a challenge to the alleged will in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki and so also the rent deed executed by Dinesh Kumar Solanki in favour of petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi.

9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since issue as regards the genuineness of the will executed by Om Prakash in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki and so also the rent deed executed by Dinesh Kumar Solanki in favour of petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi, to which petitioner No.2-Pradeep Kumar Suman is a witness, is the subject matter of civil suits which now cannot be looked into by the police in an investigation of a criminal case.

10. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the lodging of a criminal case so as to settle a civil dispute by resorting to the criminal proceedings and to create pressure upon them, is a severe misuse of process of law.

11. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has referred the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in “Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.” (2013)11 Supreme Court Cases 673.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Singh, counsel appearing for the complainant submits that Dinesh Kumar Solanki (now dead) in conspiracy with petitioner No.1-Ajay Yogi & petitioner No.2 Pradeep Kumar Suman, had prepared a forged will dated 16.08.1989, so as to take possession of the premises in question. He further submits that the signatures of one Om Prakash (on the will in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki) are also forged.

13. Counsel appearing for the complainant also submits that the police during investigation has found allegations against the petitioners to be proved and, therefore, the prayer for quashing the F.I.R., is liable to be reject