Dismissed

Giriraj v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 Jul 2022CRLMP/2956/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner for forgery. It held that the lower courts reasonably found the petitioner had fraudulently inserted names into settlement records and that the FIR was valid based on witness testimony.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned orders of lower courts affirmed; no quashment granted.

Giriraj Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2956/2016

¶3

Giriraj S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad, aged 41 years, R/o Village-Mansar Kheri, PS & Tehsil-Bassi, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Accused-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶7

Kailash Chand Adopted son of Shri Ram Sahai, aged 52 years, R/o Village-Mansar Kheri, Tehsil-Bassi, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.S. Poonia, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhediya, Public Prosecutor Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶11

Order

¶12

08/07/2022 :

¶13

Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioner against the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.13, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, was affirmed.

¶14

Contention of learned counsel appearing for the accusedpetitioner is that in the pending revenue case, Kailash Chand was also one of the answering respondent. In reply to the said case, Kailash Chand never stated that the documents produced by Chhoti are false or fabricated. After demise of Chhoti, the petitioner had joined as a party

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-2956/2016]

¶17

in the pending revenue case, as a substituted plaintiff and produced the certified copies of documents. Investigating Officer has failed to obtain and send the documents for examination to F.S.L. An F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2010 and the documents in revenue case were within the knowledge of the respondent. The lodging of F.I.R. impugned is delayed by 25 years. The order of charge dated 01.05.2015 is not a well reasoned order. The Court of Revision has also failed to analyze the factual matrix of the case. Lastly, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, have strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners.

¶19

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material made available on record.

¶20

In the instant case, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 477 of I.P.C.

¶21

From perusal of charge-sheet, it is revealed that the record of disputed part of the land has been received in the settlement, which does not contain the name of Ramgopal from Samvat 1994 to 2003, whereas Giriraj has knowingly submitted, before the Court, a copy of the record fraudulently containing the name of Ramgopal, which Giriraj had not received from the settlement.

¶22

The Court of Revision, while rejecting the petition, vide its impugned order dated 08.03.2016, had observed that an F.I.R. had been lodged against the petitioner for forging false documents. During investigation, in that F.I.R., Investigating Officer had recorded statements of witnesses, namely Kailash Chand, Rajendra Prasad,

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMP-2956/2016]

¶25

Ghasiram, Kailash Chand and Madan Lal under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. As per statements of witnesses, specific role had been attributed to petitioner - Giriraj @ Rameshwar.

¶26

Thus, the objections raised by learned counsel appearing for accused-petitioner do not sustain in the light of above discussion. This Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are well reasoned and there is no illegality or perversity in the said orders. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case for quashing of impugned orders is made out.

¶27

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

¶28

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J.

¶30

Satyendra-ashok/55

Giriraj v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giriraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jyoti Wife of Shri Praveen, D/O Shri Bhagirath Soni, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Singhal S/O Late Sh. Prem Chan Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Vipin Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Shyoraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Kanchan Devi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sona Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.