Allowed

Anita v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2022CRLMP/1816/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and consequential proceedings. The court accepted an undertaking by petitioners to refrain from claiming property rights, ordered the return of original documents, and awarded Rs. 1 Lac compensation to the respondent for legal expenses.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.59/2020 and proceedings; directed return of original documents; awarded Rs. 1 Lac compensation.

Anita Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1816/2020

¶4

Anita W/o Shri Laxman Ram, Aged About 40 Years, 34, Kisan Kesari Nagar, Banar, District Jodhpur.

¶5

Laxman Ram S/o Shri Rugha Ram, Aged About 40 Years, 34, Kisan Kesari Nagar, Banar, District Jodhpur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

Santosh Vaishnav D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Vaishnav, Banawaton Ka Bera, Chainpura, Mandor, District Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP Mr. Surya Prakash Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

04/08/2022

¶15

This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of FIR No.59/2020 and all the consequential proceedings of Police Station Mandor, District Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Section 420, 464, 467, 468 & 120-B of IPC.

¶16

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that the complainant-respondent No.2 is a divorcee lady and one plot was given to her in permanent alimony by her husband and a registered sale deed was executed. The allegation of the respondent No.2 is that the present petitioners purchased one stamp of Rs.500/- on 29.09.2019 and three blank pie papers for mutation of the plot, rather than completing the mutation, the

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-1816/2020]

¶19

said documents were retained by the petitioners. The respondent No.2 remained under the impression that the documents were destroyed, but neither the original documents of sale deed were returned to her nor the blank papers were returned by the petitioners.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original registered sale deed along with the blank papers and stamp paper is in the possession of the Investigating Officer and he further undertakes on behalf of the petitioners that they will neither claim any right over the said plot and nor in future shall claim any right over the plot in question. Learned counsel also undertakes that they shall also not create any right in favour of any persons from those documents.

¶21

On such specific undertaking having been made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it emanates that no loss in present and future is likely to be cause to the respondent No.2.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the both the petitioners are government servants and any continuance of trial is like to cause serious prejudice to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks intervention of this Court for closure of the case.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that if complete right of the respondent No.2 is secured from the present petitioners, regarding the plot in question, then she has no objection to end the criminal proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 has incurred legal expenses in coming to the courts, engaging the lawyers and other misc. expenses in pursuing the remedy in question, and thus, such legal expenses be reimbursed to her.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-1816/2020]

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the offence was being investigated but in case, such an order is passed, he has nothing to submit.

¶27

Upon such submissions, this Court deems it appropriate that this is a fit case where the powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised, and thus, while directing that the petitioners shall not claim any right over the plot in question as assured by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the complete original documents, which belonged to the title of the plot in question, shall be returned by the Investigating Officer to the respondent No.2. The undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioners shall remain binding upon the petitioners.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.59/2020 registered at Police Station Mandor, Jodhpur along with the entire proceedings pursuant thereto is hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be required to give a draft of Rs.1 Lac to the respondent No.2 in lieu of compensation for legal expenses. 10. Stay petition as well as all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶29

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶30

167-Zeeshan

Anita v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita 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

Premlata Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Krishan Lal Wadhwa Vs State of Raj

Devendra Sankhla Vs Parbat Singh

Swati Sharma Vs Bheemraj Jakhad