Dismissed

Kalidas Tabiyar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2021CRLMP/1006/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR on grounds of political bias, lack of proper investigation into forged documents, and possession of ancestral land. The High Court found prima facie evidence of forgery, land grabbing, and loan sanctioned on forged signatures, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; case diary and factual report show prima facie criminal act of forgery was proved.

Kalidas Tabiyar Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1006/2019

¶3

Kalidas Tabiyar S/o Shri Pem Ji Tabiyar, Aged About 71 Years,

¶4

Sunil Kumar S/o Kalidas Tabiyar, Aged About 46 Years,

¶5

Virendra S/o Shri Pem Ji Tabiyar, Aged About 56 Years,

¶6

All B/c Bhil, R/o Upkhand Village Khutatikma, Police Station Anandpuri, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

Dhan Pal Pargi S/o Mana Ji b/c Pargi, r/o Kajliya Regional Workar Rajasthan Gramdan Board Mu. Sundrav, Banswara And so called claimed to be Patwari Khuta Tikma Tehsil Anandpuri, Dist Banswara (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. H.R. Soni
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi PP
	Mr. Kapil Patidar, SHO, PS Anandpuri, Banswara present in person. Mr. Mahaveer Singh

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

Reserved on 17/08/2021 Pronounced on 01/09/2021

¶16

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶17

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CRLMP-1006/2019]

¶20

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be kind enough to allow this petition and quash the impugned FIR 26/2019, Police Station Anandpuri (State Vs. Sunil Kumar & Others Annex-4) and proceeding be dropped. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of petitioners, may kindly be also passed.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the political heavyweights, on the opposite side, are resulting into the present prejudicial investigation, as a sitting MLA itself, is involved.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners had also lodged an FIR bearing No.152/2016 at Police Station Anandpuri, District Banswara, whereafter, the petitioners had also filed a representation before the concerned investigating authority; however, without considering such representation and without any due application of mind, the police had submitted a negative final report in the said case.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the land in question originally, was not a government land, and therefore, levelling of the allegations in question against the present petitioners cannot be said to be justified.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned FIR against the petitioners was merely lodged for exerting unnecessary pressure upon them.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in relation to the aforementioned FIR lodged by the present petitioners, the investigating agencies have not done any investigation with respect to the photo of Rav Ji pasted on the

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CRLMP-1006/2019]

¶28

disputed patta, and the thumb impression and fingerprints of Rav Ji, which were part of the documents, were also not investigated.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that if the documents in question were forged, the Bank itself would not have sanctioned the loan. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question, being their ancestral land, for last 70 years. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor alongwith the concerned investigating officer present in person before this Court opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. The case diary alongwith the factual report of the case has also been produced before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a detailed perusal of the case diary alongwith the factual report of the case, this Court finds that the investigation done so far in this case indicates that the petitioners have committed a criminal act, as they have created a document in respect of a Gramdani land, after forging the signatures of Rav Ji, the then President of Gramdani , while trying to grab the land in question in Village Khutatikma. This Court also finds that the document (a forged patta) was also submitted before the Bank authorities, and loan was taken against the same. This Court further finds that during investigation, the signatures of Rav Ji have been found to be forged, on all the documents. Thus, a bare perusal of the case diary clearly indicates that prima facie the alleged offences have been found to be proved against the present petitioners.

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CRLMP-1006/2019]

¶33

In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to make any interference under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶34

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, so as to not to prejudice the ongoing investigation of the case, the parties are left at liberty to take their respective stand before the concerned investigating officer. All pending applications also stand

¶35

dismissed.

¶36

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶37

SKant/-

Kalidas Tabiyar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalidas Tabiyar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Chaturvedi @ Rahul Sharma Vs State

Durgesh Sharma Vs Premchand

Revat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Asha Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Iliyas Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Iliyas Khan Vs State of Rajasthan