Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad Titarwal Son of Shri Narayan Titarwal, by Caste Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Aug 2019CRLMP/1245/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a private complainant's quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that since the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence involving transfer of property in violation of a stay order, the police must investigate and the court could not quash it.

What did the court decide?

Misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR; stay application and interim application disposed of.

Jagdish Prasad Titarwal Son of Shri Narayan Titarwal, by… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1245/2019

¶3

Jagdish Prasad Titarwal Son Of Shri Narayan Titarwal, By Caste Jat, R/o 36, Jaton Ka Mohalla, Kumariawas, Sanganer, Jaipur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

Inderpal Singh Son Of Shri Mahaveer Singh, R/o B-4, Airport Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat Mr. Prameshwar Lal Pilania For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

01/08/2019

¶13

Matter comes up on application for vacation of stay order dated 07.03.2019.

¶14

With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at this stage.

¶15

Petitioner has preference this misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR No.122/2019 registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur (South).

¶16

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was owning Plot No.37 at Vatika Village in Green Valley Scheme. It is contended that petitioner surrendered his plot to Hari Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti and complainant purchased the plot

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-1245/2019]

¶19

from the society. It is also contended that false allegation has been levelled in the FIR.

¶20

It is further contended that petitioner was owner of the plot and he had surrendered the plot and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 6. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition. It is contended that stay order was operating in relation to the scheme, hence petitioner had no right to transfer the property. Petitioner took an amount of Rs. 4,22,000/- from the complainant and got his property transferred in the name of the complainant. The fact that there was stay operating, was not brought to the notice of the complainant by the petitioner. Petitioner was hand in glove with the members of the society in issuing patta even when there was stay operating against the society. It is also contended that petitioner has cheated the complainant and FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

¶21

I have considered the contentions and have perused the FIR. 8. There is specific allegation in the FIR that petitioner took money from the complainant and transferred his Plot No.37 to the complainant. From the documents submitted by the complainant, it is revealed that there was stay operating on the disputed property. Stay was operating from August, 2013 and the property was transferred in February, 2015. As to whether, petitioner was aware of the stay order, is to be investigated by the police. FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence.

¶22

Apex Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat And Ors. , (2018) 3 SCC 104 has held that when FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the High

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMP-1245/2019]

¶25

Court should let the police do its role and investigate the matter. High Court could not draw its own inferences at this stage.

¶26

In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the misc. petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

¶27

Accordingly, the misc. petition is dismissed. Stay application and interim application stand disposed.

¶28

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶29

Simple Kumawat /29

Jagdish Prasad Titarwal Son of Shri Narayan Titarwal, by Caste Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Titarwal Son of Shri Narayan Titarwal, by Caste Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Saxena Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Naurang Lal Chawla S/O Late Shri Puranmal Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan

Kawal Nain Kaur W/O Kawal Nain Chadha B/C Punjabi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Pal Bunkar Vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Ashok Kumar Sharma Jangid Vs Rajkumar and Anr.

Divan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.