[2026:RJ-JP:1205]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 648/2018

1. Jai Singh S/o Lala, 2. Bheru Singh S/o Ladu Singh, 3. Birdi Chand S/o Chotu Rawat, All are R/o Purohito Ki Dhani, Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Smt. Rukmani (since deceased) through legal representative Smt. Phooli D/o Lt. Smt. Rukmani wife of Sh. Pappu, R/o Village Govliya Mohall Nadi Dara, Tehsil Pushkar, District Ajmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sarwat Alam, Adv.

Mr. Gorang Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Naruka, Adv. and Mr. Pulkit Raj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

12/01/2026

1. This criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.210/2000, registered with Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and against the cognizance order dated 12.04.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kishangarh, District Ajmer of taking cognizance against the petitioners.

2. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR was instituted in the year 2000 by the legal heirs of Smt. Rukmani, the wife of Gheesa, alleges that the land was transferred to the petitioners by fraud and deceit. Learned counsel argues it for the petitioners that the legal heirs of Gheesa filed a civil suit against the present petitioners in the A.D.J. Fast Track No.3, Ajmer, for quashing the sale deed for the disputed land and issue Nos. 1 and 2 were specifically framed, which are as follows:-

"1 आया पततवादी सखा 2 के हक मे तकया गया eq[R;kjukek तदनाक 5.4.97 अवैध एवं शून है?

2 आया पततवादी सखा 2 पततवादी संखा 1 के हक मे तनषातदत तवकय पत तदनातकत

24.8.98 अवैध एवं शून है?"

3. Both parties led their evidence. In the civil suit, the trial Court dismissed the suit with the categorical finding that no fraud or cheating was committed in the execution of the sale deed dated 24.08.1998. Thereafter, the respondent challenged the decree before the High Court and vide order dated 31.01.2017, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. The aforesaid facts clearly show that the dispute between the parties was entirely of a civil nature. The FIR was lodged only to grab the disputed property illegally, and the lodging of the FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The subsequent cognisance order was also passed without proper application of mind. Therefore, the FIR lodged against the petitioner and the following order taking cognisance be quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR. However, the learned Public Prosecutor concedes that, after investigation, the Police did not find a commission of an offence against the petitioner and submitted a final negative report.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record.

7. The chequered history of litigation between the parties itself is enough to indicate that a civil suit was preferred by the respondent against the petitioners for nullifying the sale deed. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2010 dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the respondent. The respondent in the civil suit took a specific plea that the sale deed executed by the petitioners on 24.08.1998 is illegal, and the trial Court, while deciding the Issue Nos. 1 and 2, concluded that the documents were genuinely executed and dismissed the suit. Afterwards, the respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court, which, vide order dated 13.01.2017, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

8. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the FIR registered against the petitioners was only to pressurize the petitioners. In the civil suit, the said issues between the parties have already been conclusively decided. Therefore, the instant FIR and the subsequent