Dismissed

Kelabai W/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2025CRLMP/6096/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the quashing of cognizance against the accused for forgery and cheating related to an adoption deed. The Court held that since a civil court had previously declared the adoption deed valid, criminal proceedings based on its alleged forgery were unsustainable. The petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kelabai W/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal B/C Meena Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40638]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6096/2019

¶4

Kelabai W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, aged about 65 Years, R/o Bundi Bijnora, Thana Anta, Police Station & District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

Ghanshyam S/o Shri Latoor Lal, adopted S/o Badri Lal, aged about 45 Years, R/o Bamulia, Gajanpura, Tehsil & District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.M. Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Lalit Kishore Joshi on behalf of Mr. Arvind Gupta

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order

¶12

07/10/2025

¶13

By way of filing this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Case, Baran, District-Baran, whereby the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran, for taking cognizance against the non-petitioner/accused has been quashed.

¶14

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that one criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner/complainant against the non-petitioner/accused for committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC on 25.05.2016. It was contended that the non-petitioner/accused Ghanshyam allegedly prepared one forged document to deprive

[2025:RJ-JP:40638]

[CRLMP-6096/2019]

(2 of 3)

the petitioner/complainant of her rights in respect of agricultural land.

¶19

It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the adoption deed dated 04.06.1998 prepared by the non-petitioner/accused was a fabricated document and on the basis of such fabrication and forged adoption deed, the nonpetitioner/accused has sold the agricultural property, for which, otherwise the petitioner is entitled. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-petitioner/accused was not the adopted son of Late Sh. Badri Lal and accordingly, the trial Court rightly took cognizance vide order dated 04.12.2017 on a complaint made by the petitioner. The Revisional Court has committed serious irregularities and illegalities in quashing the cognizance without properly examining the report and without even getting report of FSL with regard to the adoption deed in question.

¶20

Learned counsel for the non-petitioner/accused as well as learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and stated that after duly examining the contents of complaint, material on record as well as the judgment given by the Competent Civil Court with regard to veracity and validity of the adoption deed, the Revisional Court has rightly quashed the cognizance erroneously taken by the trial Court against the nonpetitioner/accused.

¶21

Heard and considered.

¶22

Bare perusal of the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Revisional Court would make it clear that while examining the order of cognizance, it has been taken into consideration by the

[2025:RJ-JP:40638]

[CRLMP-6096/2019]

(3 of 3)

Revisional Court that the adoption deed dated 04.06.1998 in favour of non-petitioner/accused was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by way of filing civil suit before the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Baran, which was decided vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2008, whereby suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and a categorical finding was given that the nonpetitioner/accused was adopted son of Late Sh. Badri Lal pursuant to an adoption deed, which was legally and validly executed.

¶27

Bare perusal of the criminal complaint would reveal that sole basis of allegations levelled against the nonpetitioner/accused was that the adoption deed dated 04.06.1998 was a forged document and on the basis of such forged document, the non-petitioner/accused has maliciously deprived the petitioner of her rights in respect of agricultural land earlier owned and possessed by her father. Since, the veracity and validity of adoption deed has already been examined by Civil Court and the judgment dated 02.05.2008 has been passed holding that the adoption deed was a valid and genuine document. It is a settled proposition of law that findings of Civil Court shall prevail over the criminal proceedings.

¶28

Hence, under these circumstances, I do not find any manifest error or illegality in the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Revisional Court. Hence, there is no scope for interference in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶29

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶30

DAKSH/60

Kelabai W/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kelabai W/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Soni and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Laddu Lal Gurjar S/O Kajod Mal Gurjar B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Satpal @ Veer Bahadur S/O Shri Gambhir Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar Kejriwal Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Laxmi Gahlot Daughter of Bhanwar Singh Gahlot Vs State of Rajasthan

Nuri Said Ahmad Son of Noor Said Ahmad Vs State of Rajasthan