The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes, emphasizing that the FIR lacked allegations constituting a criminal offence and should be quashed.

ORDER :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Facts of this petition would reveal that the manner, in which criminal law is being misused in a matter of purely civil nature just to exert undue pressure and to wreak vengeance.

2. Petitioner has challenged FIR No.174/2015 dated 08.10.2015 registered at Police Station-Mangaliawas, District- Ajmer for offence under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC .

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the fundamental dispute is in respect of land bearing Khasra No.561, Village- Amargarh, District-Ajmer. Erstwhile, Khatedar of the aforesaid land was complainant-Beeja. The complainant executed one registered sale deed dated 30.12.1985 in favour of Sh. Gulab Chand. It was mentioned in the sale deed that while executing the same, the vendor/complainant-Beeja has received sale consideration and handed over possession of the land to purchaser-Sh. Gulab Chand. Till this date, the said sale deed dated 30.12.1985 is a legal and valid document and has not been cancelled or quashed by any Competent Court or any other appropriate Authority. Further, pursuant to aforesaid sale deed, necessary mutation order was passed by the Revenue Authorities and name of purchaser-Sh. Gulab Chand was entered in Jamabandi, which is placed on record as Annexure-3.

4. Thereafter, purchaser-Sh. Gulab Chand died and after his death, names of his legal heirs Narendra, Sohan, Mohan, Suresh, Ramkanya and Seema were entered in the Jamabandi as Khatedar of the aforesaid land bearing Khasra No.561. The aforesaid revenue entries have also never been challenged by the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, undivided share of sons of aforesaid Late Sh. Gulab Chand namely Narendra, Sohan, Mohan and Suresh was sold by them to one Sh. Kaila Singh S/o Sh. Sayar Singh vide registered sale deed dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure-5) and in turn Sh. Kaila Singh further sold that same to one Sh. Mohan on 03.07.2015 by way of executing registered sale deed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that thereafter Sh. Mohan sold that aforesaid land to the petitioner by executing registered sale deed dated 03.07.2015 and remaining undivided share of the daughters of Late Sh. Gulab Chand was purchased by the petitioner by way of separate sale deed dated 30.03.2015. It is further submitted that thus, the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and after paying the due consideration, the land has been purchased by him through a registered sale deed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner has exercised all due caution and vigil while purchasing the said land. However, just to create undue pressure upon the petitioner and to extort undue money, in quite malicious manner, FIR through a criminal complaint has been registered by the complainant on 08.10.2015. He submits that the complainant had already sold the land in question around 30 years back to other person by way of registered sale deed and he has no right, title and interest in the said land after selling the same.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even bare reading of the FIR would not make out any of the ingredients of Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC . He also submits that the FIR is absolutely silent with regard to any dishonest intention whatsoever on the part of the petitioner, nor is there any allegation against the petitioner with regard to any inducement or causing undue loss to the complainant.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that forgery has been defined under Section 463 IPC and there is no whisper at all in the entire FIR, so a