[2026:RJ-JP:8065]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 64/2011 Guman Singh S/o Late Shri Raghunath Singh, R/o Suliyawas, at present Village Barod, Police Station Khandhar, District Sawaimadhopur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

2. Laxminarayan son of Lal Chand, aged 56 years, R/o Swami Ki Dhani, Suliyawas, Police Station, Dantaramgarh, Sikar.

3. Baksa Ram S/o Nanu Ram, R/o Bad Ka Chaaranwas, Police Station Dantaramgarh, Sikar.

4. Durga Ram S/o Padma Ram, R/o Khatiwas, Police Station Dantaramgarh, Sikar.

5. Dedraj S/o Chanda, R/o Bidoli, Police Station, Sadar, Sikar.

6. Bhagirath Singh S/o Lichman Singh, R/o Suliyawas, Police Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harshita Sharma on behalf of Dr. Mahesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

20/02/2026

1. Present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.06.2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantaramgarh, Sikar, whereby the negative Final Report submitted by investigating agency was accepted, as well as order dated 11.01.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, dismissing the revision petition filed against order dated 10.06.2009.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that FIR No. 09/2009 dated 17.01.2009 was registered at the instance of petitioner against accused-respondent No. 2, Laxmi Narayan, alleging that a forged agreement to sell dated 19.12.1994 had been executed by the accused with respect to petitioner's share in his ancestral property. It was alleged that on the strength of said forged agreement to sell, respondent no. 2 instituted a civil suit. Said agreement to sell, according to petitioner, was prepared with a dishonest intention to grab his land.

3. It was contended that investigating agency, without properly examining allegations of forgery and without conducting a thorough investigation, submitted a negative Final Report. Thereafter, learned trial Court, vide its order dated 10.06.2009, accepted the same while allegedly ignoring material available on record..

4. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 11.01.2010.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that both Courts below have committed errors of law in passing impugned orders dated 10.06.2009 and 11.01.2010 and that the same run contrary to the allegations contained in FIR as well as the material available on record.

6. It was further submitted that the negative Final Report was submitted merely on the ground that a civil suit pertaining to said agreement to sell dated 19.12.1994 was pending, without independently examining allegations of forgery in preparation of said document.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the FIR in question was nothing but a counter-blast to earlier proceedings initiated against petitioner.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that FIR No. 192/2008 dated 25.09.2008 had already been lodged by respondent Laxmi Narayan alleging that despite executing an agreement to sell and receiving full consideration, petitioner had executed another agreement to sell with an intent to cheat and defraud him (Laxmi Narayan). It is stated that upon investigation in respect of said FIR, a challan was filed against petitioner on 30.01.2009; he was arrested and later released on bail. In the said case, cognizance was taken on 22.04.2009 and charges were framed on

18.07.2009.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the FIR in question was lodged merely as a counterblast to FIR filed by respondent no. 2, and that investigating agency, after due inquiry, has rightly submitted a negative Final Report.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor further contended that scope of interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in such mat