Dismissed

Batti Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2019CRLMP/2943/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismissed two connected criminal miscellaneous petitions. The petitions sought fair investigation and quashing of an FIR regarding alleged forgery offences. The Court dismissed both as the police had concluded offences were made out and the FIR disclosed cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Both the fair investigation petition and the quashing petition are dismissed; stay application disposed of.

Batti Lal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5755/2015

¶4

Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Ward No. 10, Purani Mandi, Khand Dak, Lalsot, Distt. Dausa

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶8

Batti Lal S/o Shri Ram Karan

¶9

Girraj S/o Shri Narayan

¶10

Meehta Lal S/o Shri Ram Karan

¶11

Rajendra S/o Shri Ram Karan Respondents no. 2 to 5 are B/c Mali, R/o Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶12

Girraj Prasad S/o Shri Gallu Ram B/c Mali, R/o Village Chondiyawas, Tehsil Lalsot Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2943/2015

¶16

Batti Lal S/o Shri Ram Karan

¶17

Girraj S/o Shri Narayan

¶18

Meehta Lal S/o Shri Ram Karan

¶19

Rajendra S/o Shri Ram Karan

¶20

All are B/c Mali, R/o Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶21

Girraj Prasad S/o Shri Gallu Ram B/c Mali, R/o Village Chondiyawas, Tehsil Lalsot Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶22

Versus

¶23

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶24

Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, by caste Sanjogi

¶25

Veiragi, R/o Ward No. 10, Purani Mandi, Khand Dak, Ganjori Bajar, Lalsot, Distt. Dausa

¶26

(2 of 4)

¶27

[CRLMP-5755/2015]

¶28

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SR Surana Sr. Counsel with Mr. Rakesh Trivedi and Mr. Chitrank Sharma for the accused

¶29

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar for the complainant Mr. FR Meena PP

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶31

Order

¶32

05/07/2019

¶33

The complainant has preferred the criminal miscellaneous petition No. 5755/2015 seeking fair investigation in FIR No. 22/2015 registered at Police Station Lalsot, Dausa for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The accused has preferred the criminal miscellaneous petition No. 2943/2015 seeking quashing of FIR No. 22/2015 registered at Police Station Lalsot, Dausa for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

¶34

It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the police has come to the conclusion that the offence is made out against the accused persons. A copy of the report dated 12.12.2018 is submitted before the court.

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted report dated 8.5.2019 wherein the police has come to the conclusion that the offences are made out.

¶36

The accused petitioners have preferred the petition seeking quashing of FIR.

¶37

It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners in criminal misc. petition No. 2943/2015 that the Patta was issued in favour of the ancestors of the accused petitioners on

¶38

(3 of 4)

¶39

[CRLMP-5755/2015]

¶40

6.9.2017. The complainant moved for the regularization of the said plot but no Patta has been issued in favour of the complainant.

¶41

A suit for eviction was filed by the ancestors of the accused petitioners and the said suit was decreed on 10.9.1982. The appeal was preferred by the complainant which was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The second appeal preferred on behalf of the accused was dismissed in default and the restoration also stands dismissed. The Apex Court has also dismissed the restoration on 13.10.2014.

¶42

It is contended that the property was sold on 24.12.2014. Since accused petitioners were having title on the property, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the suit for eviction has been dismissed, the accused petitioners continued to be the owners of the property as they have the Patta issued in their favour. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is made out.

¶43

It is also contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners that the complainant till date is not having any valid Patta issued in his favour and is not the owner of the property, hence, has no locus standi to file the FIR. It is also contended that the Patta issued in favour of the ancestors of the accused petitioners is not set aside by any court and has not been withdrawn by the issuing authority till date.

¶44

I have considered the contentions and have perused the status report submitted by the Public Prosecutor and have also gone through the judgments passed by the court below.

¶45

(4 of 4)

¶46

[CRLMP-5755/2015]

¶47

It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the accused petitioners stands dismissed upto the level of Apex Court on 13.10.2014. It is also not in dispute that after dismissal of the petition by the Apex Court, the property was sold on 24.12.2014. The Appellate Court while dismissing the suit observed that the complainant were in possession of the property even prior to the date of issuance of Patta in favour of the ancestors of the accused petitioners. The Appellate Court has also observed that the plaintiff’s brother-in-law was Panch in the village and that the Patta was issued at his instance and that the Patta could not have been issued without getting the property vacated from the complainant. The court has also come to conclusion that no ownership rights have accrued in favour of the ancestors on the basis of Patta.

¶48

The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and police has come to conclusion that the offencess are made out. Hence, the petition filed by the complainant seeking fair investigation requires to be dismissed as Police has already concluded that the offences are made out.

¶49

Similarly, the petition filed by the accused also deserves to be dismissed as Police has come to conclusion that the offences are made out and the FIR discloses the commission of offences.

¶50

Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶51

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶52

Mak/-

Batti Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Batti Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uddal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mohan Lal Gupta S/O Ram Swaroop Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Radheyshyam Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rukmani Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sitaram Jat S/O Jagdish Narayan Jat Vs State of Rajasthan