Advocates:
['RS CHOUDHARY', '', 'ASHOK CHOUDHARY', 'BR CHAHAR', 'BS BHANWARIYA', 'JK SUTHAR', 'JR CHAWEL', 'MAHENDRA CHOUDHARY', 'SS GOUR', 'PP', '', 'CR JAKHAR']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 150/2018

1.

Ramkaran S/o Bhagu Ram

2.

Ramdeva Ram S/o Bhagu Ram , Both Residents Of

Jaislan, Tehsil Ladnun District Nagaur.

3.

Khema Ram S/o Mohan Ram , Resident Of Jaislan, Tehsil

Ladnun District Nagaur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan

2.

Ganpat Ram S/o Lachha Ram , Resident Of Jaislan, Tehsil

Ladnun District Nagaur.

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 296/2018

1.

Ramkaran S/o Bhagu Ram

2.

Ramdeva Ram S/o Bhagu Ram , Both Residents Of

Jaislan, Tehsil Ladnun District Nagaur.

3.

Khema Ram S/o Mohan Ram , By Caste Jat, Resident Of

Jaislan, Tehsil Ladnun District Nagaur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan

2.

Ganpat Ram S/o Lachha Ram , Resident Of Jaislan, Tehsil

Ladnun District Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr R.S.Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr V.S.Rajpurohit – PP

Mr C.R.Jakhar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

25/07/2018

(2 of 6)

[CRLMP-150/2018]

These criminal misc. petitions are preferred by the

petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIRs No.179/2017 and

180/2017 lodged at Police Station, Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur at

the instance of respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under

sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

In the impugned FIRs, respondent No.2 has stated that

he and Bhagu Ram were the real brothers and their agriculture

land is situated in village Jaislan, District Nagaur. It is contended

that their father has died and their mother used to live with Bhagu

Ram, however, after her death, an agreement was executed on

02.04.2015 in the presence of several persons and as per the said

agreement, the agriculture land was partitioned between them.

It is stated in the impugned FIRs that after the said

partition, the petitioner and his brother were in possession of their

respective lands, however, in November 2015, his brother Bhagu

Ram hatched a conspiracy with the petitioners and transferred

some of the agriculture land in their names through registered

sale-deed though the said agriculture land is falling in his share as

per the agreement dated 02.04.2015. It is alleged that the

petitioner – Khema Ram was the witness to the agreement dated

02.04.2015, however, despite knowing this fact that the land

which was transferred by Bhagu Ram in favour of his sons is

falling in his share, became a witness in the said registered sale-

deeds.

It is contended that when the complainant obtained the

copies of the revenue records on 20.09.2017, he came to know

about the said sale-deeds, however, in between his brother Bhagu

Ram died. The complainant has alleged that the petitioners

hatched a conspiracy and prepared forged documents and on the

(3 of 6)

[CRLMP-150/2018]

basis of it grabbed the agriculture land of the complainant and

committed offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471

and 120-B IPC.

Both the impugned FIRs are in relation to two

registered sale-deeds executed in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1

and 2, however, all the petitioners have been arrayed as accused

in those FIRs and investigation is going on.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

even though if the allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs are

taken as it is, no cognizable offence is made out against the

petitioners. It is contended that the sum and substance of the

allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs is to the effect that an

agreement was executed between the complainant and father of

the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and as per the said agreement,

partition of agriculture land was given to the complainant but later

on in contravention of the said agreement, deceased Bhagu Ram

sold some agriculture land which is alleged to be fallen in the

share of the complainant. It is urged that from this, it is clear that

the dispute between the