Disposed

Fateh Mohammed v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2019CRLW/37/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of connected petitions challenging an FIR. The court directed petitioners to submit a detailed representation with documents to the investigating officer within 10 days. The court referred proceedings of a Section 340 application but heard petitions finally.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file detailed representation with documents before investigating officer within 10 days; Section 340 Cr.P.C. application dismissed as not pressed.

Fateh Mohammed Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 759/2019

¶3

Tara Singh S/o Sh. Nand Singh, Aged About 71 Years, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o. Village Kotbhara, Post Kotfatta, Tehsil Maur, Distt. Bhatinda (Punjab)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan

¶7

Shri Rajkumar S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad, B/c Agarwal, R/o Nohar Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh

¶8

Tara Singh S/o Anand Singh @ Anant Singh @ Nand Singh, B/c Sikh, R/o Chak 10A, Ward No 10, 2 PGM, Anoopgarh Distt. Sri Ganganagar

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1523/2016

¶12

Sarjeet Singh S/o. Shri kala Singh by caste Jat Sikh, R/o. Rambag, Gali Number 1, Sidhu Colony, H.No.11/24, Near Gurudwara, Bhantinda, Punjab.

¶13

Harjinder Singh S/o. Shri Guljar Singh, by caste Majbi Sikh, r/o. Village Kotbhara, Post kotfatta, tehsil Maur, District Bhatinda, (Punjab).

¶14

Jaswant Singh S/o. Narsingh, by caste Jat Sikh, r/o. Buraj Dhilwa, District Mansa (Punjab).

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Rajasthan

¶18

Shri Rajkumar S/o. Shri Dwarka Prasad, by caste Agarwal, r/ o. Nohar tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1613/2018

¶21

Fateh Mohammed S/o Shri Noor Mohammed, By Caste Musalman, Resident Of Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶22

----Petitioner

¶23

Versus

¶24

State Of Rajasthan

¶25

Raj Kumar S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad, By Caste Agrawal,

¶26

(2 of 5)

¶27

[CRLMP-759/2019 with connected matters]

¶28

R/o Nohar Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 37/2019

¶31

Fateh Mohammed S/o Noor Mohammed, B/c Leelghar Musalman, Aged About 66 Years, Resident of Tagore Chowk, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, Dist Hanumangarh.

¶32

----Petitioner

¶33

Versus

¶34

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Dept Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶35

Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh. 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Nohar, Dist Hanumangarh.

¶36

Rajkumar S/o Dwarkaprasad Agrawal, B/c Agrawal, R/o. Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, Dist Hanumangarh.

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 491/2019

¶39

Tara Singh S/o Nand Singh, Aged About 73 Years, by caste Jat Sikh, R/o. Village Kotbhara, Post Kotfatta, Teh Maur, Dist Bhatinda (Punjab). (As Per Fir Named Indra Singh Majbi R/o Kotbhara, Teh Maur, Dist Bhatinda).

¶40

----Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

State Of Rajasthan, Through Investigation Officer Of FIR No.228/2018 P.S. Nohar

¶43

Rajkumar S/o Dwarka Prasad by caste Agarwal, r/o. Nohar Tehsil Nohar, Dist Hanumangarh.

¶44

----Respondents

¶45

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Moti Singh Mr. Manoj Bhandari Mr. Govind Suthar
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Farzand Ali, AAG-cum-GA Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
		Mr. Sanjay Mathur, for the complainant

¶46

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶47

(3 of 5)

¶48

[CRLMP-759/2019 with connected matters]

¶49

Order

¶50

02/07/2019

¶51

I.A. No. 01/2019 in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 759/2019 :-

¶52

Mr. Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel for the complainant does not want to press the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

¶53

The application is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

¶54

Although, the matter is listed for orders on the application preferred by the respondent (complainant) under Section 340 Cr.P.C., however, with the consent of the parties, all the petitions are heard finally.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the present controversy has chequered history and the dispute between the parties is before the Court’s of Law since the year 1998. The issue was raised before the Civil Courts and the Revenue Courts also and essentially it is a civil dispute. Even, the criminal machinery was also pressed into service, on earlier occasions also, for the same cause of action and the FIRs were filed against the petitioners. However, the Investigating Agency after investigating the matter did not find the allegations to be true and therefore, the negative final reports were filed and the matter was agitated before the Court’s which has attained finality till the High Court. The present FIR is also on the same facts and therefore, the same is required to be quashed in the light of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency on the earlier occasions.

¶57

Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently argued that it is a case of

¶58

(4 of 5)

¶59

[CRLMP-759/2019 with connected matters]

¶60

impersonation and all the land dealings have been done by the persons, who are actually not the rightful owners of the property i.e. land in question. The Investigating Agency has investigated the matter and found the allegations in the FIR having the substance. Even, the investigation reveals the involvement of the petitioners in the matter and therefore, in wake of the serious allegation against the petitioners, it is not a case in which quashing of the FIRs is warranted.

¶61

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing at length do not want to press these petitions at this stage, however, seek liberty to submit a detailed representation along with necessary and relevant documents before the Investigating Agency fortifying their stand showing the innocence of the petitioners in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, apprehends that if the matter is agitated before the Investigating Agency then, they may be arrested and coercive action may be taken against them.

¶63

Mr. Farzand Ali, learned Additional Advocate General assures this Court that if the petitioners will file a detailed representation along with all necessary documents before the investigating Agency, the matter will be looked into fairly and impartially.

¶64

In the light of the submissions made above, the present petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a detailed representation along with necessary documents before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from today. In case, the same is filed within the stipulated period, the Investigating Officer is directed to make a thorough investigation on the documents submitted by the respective petitioners keeping

¶65

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-759/2019 with connected matters]

¶66

in mind the fact that on earlier occasions, the investigation was conducted and the results were submitted before the concerned Courts.

¶67

It is needless to say that the investigating agency shall take into account the earlier decisions of the Courts of competent jurisdiction as well as the order passed by this Court.

¶68

In the event of the Investigating Agency coming to the conclusion that the arrest of the petitioners is warranted and the offence is proved, he shall give a notice of at least 10 days before arresting the petitioners in view of the authoritative pronouncement and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2014)8 SCC 273 & AIR 2014 SC 2756 .

¶69

Since the matter is quite old, it is expected that the investigation will be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months.

¶70

The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

¶71

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶72

19-23Sunils/-

Fateh Mohammed v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fateh Mohammed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu @ Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Praveen Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Tara Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar @ Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Tara Singh Vs State of Rajasthan