Advocates:
['DS GHARSANA', '', 'SURESH NEHRA', 'PP', 'DEV KRISHNA GAUR', 'SARSWATI GAUR']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2067/2021

Kishan Lal S/o Sh. Magej Nath, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste

Nath, R/o Ward No. 11, Jagiya Basti, Loonkaransar, District

Bikaner (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2.

Pankaj Tated S/o Sampat Lal, Ward No. 40, Loonkaransar,

District Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. D.S. Gharsana

For Respondent No.1

For Respondent No.2

:

:

Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

Mr. D.K. Gaur

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

04/01/2022

This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the FIR No.69/2020 of Police Station Loonkaransar,

District Bikaner.

The said FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 with the

allegations that a piece of land ad-measuring 10 bigha 18 biswa

was recorded in the name of petitioner’s mother namely Kiran

Devi wife of Sampat Lal and she is the khatedar of the said land.

In respect of the said land, dispute is going on between the

petitioner and the complainant since long. It is stated that in

respect of the said land, proceedings are going on in the revenue

court and there is stay in favour of the complainant. It is alleged

that the accused persons are trying to encroach over the said land

(2 of 4)

[CRLMP-2067/2021]

from last so many years. It is also stated that the accused persons

has lodged FIR against the complainant at Police Station

Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, however, the police after thorough

investigation into FIR has filed a negative final report in the

matter. It is further stated that at present, crop is standing on the

said land, however on 20.03.2020, in the night, the accused

persons had forcibly entered into the said land and destroyed the

fencing wall as well as the standing crop. It is also stated that the

accused persons dug the land by a JCB and tried to put on some

brick over the said land. On the said report, the police has

registered the impugned FIR under Sections 447 and 427 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a

matter of fact, the petitioner did not encroach over the land of the

complainant and it is complainant who had encroached over the

land of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in relation to the

said dispute, proceedings are going on before the revenue as well

as the civil court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also

submitted with the directions of this Court, a mauka report was

prepared by the Revenue Officer and from the said mauka report,

it is clear that the petitioner has not made any encroachment over

the land of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

further submitted that so far as the FIR lodged by the petitioner

against the complainant is concerned, the complainant party has

given assurance in written that they will remove the encroachment

over the land in question and on account of that, the police has

filed a negative report in the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that

the land in question belongs to the petitioner and it cannot be said

that the petitioner had encroached over his own land and in view

(3 of 4)

[CRLMP-2067/2021]

of the said fact, the offence punishable under Sections 447 and

427 IPC prima facie is not made out against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the

impugned FIR may be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have vehemently

opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that from a bare reading of the impugned FIR, it is clear

that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under

Sections 447 and 427 IPC, therefore, no case for quashing of the

impugned FIR is made out.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse