Mohan Lal and Others vs State of Raj. and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.�Three petitions bearing S.B. Crim. Misc. Petition No. 2945/2014 preferred by Mohan Lal, Rajnish and Manish, S.B. Crim. Misc. Petition No. 4545/2013 instituted by Ramprakash, Bhanwar Lal, Brijesh, Jitendra, Praveen, Babli @ Sarita and Sanosh Devi and S.B. Crim. Misc. Petition No. 1238/2014 filed by Radheyshyam Kumawat and Rajendra Kumar Kumawat shall be decided together.

In all the three petitions besides State of Rajasthan, Nanuram Meena, complainant has been impleaded as respondent.

All the three petitions invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that case FIR No. 430/2012 dated 25th October, 2012 registered at Police Station Harmada, Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Section 167, 187, 120-B, 406, 420, 447, 448, 452, 471 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be quashed.

It is averred in the petitions that complainant-respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the accused persons in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 25, Jaipur Metropolitan, Headquarter Chomu, Distt. Jaipur. In the aforesaid petitions, order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were passed by the Magistrate and case was sent for registration and investigation to the concerned Police Station. Upon receiving the complaint alongwith the orders passed by the Magistrate at the concerned police station, impugned FIR for the alleged offences was registered.

Complainant-respondent has filed a complaint against nine accused namely; Smt. Malti Devi, Smt. Satyavati, Smt. Sudhara Mishra, Vinod Kumar Arya, Smt. Chhoti Devi, Govindram, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Kamal Prakash Katta and Raisingh Beniwal. It is stated by the complainant that his ancestors were having joint Khatadari over the land pertaining to Khasra No. 936 and 940 and in the revenue record name of Narayan Son of Baldev and Shivnarayan father of the complainant is recorded as a joint khatedars. Father of the complainant was in possession of the land and was cultivating the same. So far Khasra No. 936 and 940 are concerned, different decisions were given and accordingly, on 0.2 area being a khatedari land, khatedars were in possession of the same. Accused Kamal Prakash Katta being President of Laxminarayanpuri Building Construction Cooperative Society after preparing forged documents, cheated khatedars of land No. 940 and had prepared forged and fabricated lease deed and on the basis thereof regarding 90-B of land pertaining to Khasra No. 936, he obtained wrong orders on 14th February, 2003 from the revenue authorities. Appeal filed against the same was dismissed on 22nd April, 2010. It was further stated that regarding the ownership of the above-land, as per Section 183(B) of Rajasthan Cultivators Regulation Act, 1955, the said land is reserved for persons who are Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and suit for injunction was also presented in the Court of Tehsildar, Amer. Similar is the position regarding the land belonging to Khasra No. 936 and 940. On 13th February, 2008, Tehsildar, Amer in respect of Khasra No. 940 had passed orders of injunction/dispossession against encroachers who had encroached upon the land. Accused No. 8 Kamal Prakash Katta on 13th February, 2008 through society had challenged the orders passed by the Tehsildar. The appeal was also dismissed by the Collector-Third grade vide his order dated 07th April, 2010. That after said orders were passed, the possession of the land belonging to Khasra No. 940 was handed over to the complainant and documents to this effect regarding handing over of the possession was prepared on 16th July, 2010. It is stated that accused No. 8 being rich person hatched a conspiracy with other accused. Accused No. 9 in order to fulfill the object through unlawful means became part of the conspiracy and all the accused being determined were making effort to take possession of the land whereas the accused were having no possession over the land. Accused No. 1 to 8 filed a suit against the complainant and accused No. 8 seeking temporary injunction and accused No. 1 to 7 asserted that on the basis of the lease deed issued by accused No. 8 they are in possession of the land. Alongwith the suit, forged lease deed regarding the land was annexed, the said forged lease deed stand rejected by JDA. It is stated that Upper Civil Judge, No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan in civil suit No. 108/2012 gave a partial relief to the accused by ordering that they will not be dispossessed except in due course of law. Against the said decision, complainant had filed an appeal however, service in the said appeal is not being affected upon accused No. 4 to 7 but accused on the pretext of order dated 5th October, 2012 passed by Upper Civil Judge, No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan intend to take possession over the land. It is further alleged that accused No. 9 for putting the other accused in possession and for taking no action in the complaint filed by the complainant had received Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rs. Fifteen lac only) as bribe. This fact is discernable from the fact that when the complainant had approached accused No. 9 complaining that the other accused intend to take forcible possession, accused No. 9 threatened the complainant that he will be compelled to send him in jail for committing breach of the peace. Photographs showing that accused made an attempt to take possession were also annexed with the complaint. It is further stated that on the basis of the order dated 5th October, 2012 passed by Upper Civil Judge, No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan, since 9th October, 2012 accused were unlawfully committing criminal acts to take possession and accused No. 1 to 8 have also given beating to complainant and had given abuses on the name of the caste of the complainant in presence of accused No. 9. Since the accused have humiliated the complainant by giving abuses on the name of the caste of the complainant, action be taken against accused No. 1 to 8. Furthermore, accused No. 9 threatened the complainant that he in his Official capacity will involve the complainant in a false case. It is further stated that accused on the basis of forged and fabricated documents were making an attempt to dispossess the complainant.

Petitioners have pleaded in the present petitions that Shyosahay @ Shiv Sahay, Narayan and Mangala Ram Sons of Kana Ram By Caste Kumawat were having their share in the land bearing Khasra No. 395, 393, 394, 353, and 356 having total area of 72 Bigha 10 biswa. They had sold the share in the land to one Laxmi Narainpuri Bhawan Niman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur (herein after to be referred to as ''Cooperative Society'') vide an agreement dated 9th July, 1987. Copy of the agreement is annexed as Annexure-2. Further stand of the accused is that above said Cooperative Society had allotted plots to various persons and grand father of the petitioners namely Nanagram who was a ''B'' Class Contractor in PWD, had also purchased plots in the name of family members in the year 1988. Grandfather of the petitioners namely Nanagraj expired on 20th October, 1995.

The star argument of the accused is that qua the same dispute, making same averments respondent-complainant had earlier lodged FIR No. 256/2005 at Police Station Harmada for offences under Section 3(4)(5)(8)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said complaint was investigated and ultimately final report No. 60 dated 30th June, 2006 was submitted by the Investigating Agency holding that dispute if any is civil in nature. Respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition which after due hearing was rejected. Aggrieved against the same, complainant preferred revision petition and the same was also dismissed by Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Copies of the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency, protest petition filed and order passed by the revisional court are annexed as Annexures-3, 4 and 5. It is stated that thereafter, complainant had lodged another FIR on the similar allegations bearing No. 345/2010 on 05th August, 2010 registered at Police Station, Harmada for offences under Section 193, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The said FIR was also investigating and final report in negative form was submitted holding that dispute if any is civil in nature. Copy of the Said FIR and final report submitted therein are annexed herewith and marked as Annexures -6 and 7 respectively.

Counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that having twice failed on similar allegations by lodging FIR No. 256/2005 and 345/2010 at the same Police Station for a third time again on self-same allegations impugned FIR bearing No. 430/2010 dated 25th October, 2012 has been lodged against nine persons.

Shri Arun Sharma, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that twice matter has been investigated earlier and petitioners were held to be a bonafide purchaser on the plots qua the specified land in the complaint and, therefore, registration of the FIR on same-self allegations for the third time is nothing but misuse and abuse of process of law.

This Court on 06th March, 2014 in S.B. Crim. Misc. Petition No. 4545/2013 had passed the following order :--

"Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that twice similar allegations were levelled and final report in negative form were submitted by the Investigating Agency.

Today, Shri Rajesh Sharma, Addl. Superintendent of Police, CID CB is present in Court. He has prayed for time to go through the file to revert back.

Put up on 23rd April, 2014.

Till then, the interim order, already in favour of the petitioners shall continue."

Factual report bearing No. 9637 dated 17th July, 2014 has been submitted in this Court. It is not denied therein that on the similar allegations, FIR No. 256/2005 was registered and after investigation, final report in negative form holding dispute is civil in nature was presented in the Court. In the said FIR, present complainant had submitted a protest petition which was accepted. It is also not denied that another FIR No. 345/2010 was registered at the same police station and after investigation, final report in negative form holding dispute is civil in nature was submitted.

The question arise in the present petition is that on the same-self allegations how many times, Investigating Agency can continue to hold investigation. Investigation once for all has to attain finality. It is to be noted that Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 141/2008 preferred by the complainant had upheld the order whereby protest petition filed by the complainant was rejected. The Sessions Judge vide its order dated 30th August, 2012 while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the complainant against the order whereby protest petition preferred by him was rejected held as under :--

It is apparent that there is a dispute between the complainant and the accused regarding the possession. The civil court order that accused shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law is still in vogue. Twice allegations of the complainant that petitioners have abused him on the name of caste and have taken steps to take possession and had forged the sale deed have not been found to be true. The real dispute it seem is that whether Kamal Prakash Katta being President of Laxminarayanpuri Building Construction Cooperative Society was competent to execute lease deed in favour of the accused or not and this has been subject matter of civil suit. Non-competence of the person to execute lease deed and still not necessarily lead to conclusion that the lease deeds are a forged documents. Hon''ble Apex Court in Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, has held that in case the document is executed by a person who was not competent to execute the same, grievance to lodge criminal prosecution will vest in the persons in whose favour the document has been executed.

Be that as it may, since the matter has been twice investigated and the protest petition filed by the complainant has been rejected by the Court of the Magistrate and revision filed to this effect was also dismissed by the Court below, continuation of the proceedings third time on the same-self allegations is nothing but misuse and abuse of process of law. Complainant instead of dispossessing the accused by invoking due process of law as per the mandate given by the civil court, as a misuse and abuse of process of law has approached the police third time by raking up again same controversy, police cannot be permitted to usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court and act in aid of the complainant to dispossess the accused.

Consequently, holding that twice on the same-self allegations, police has submitted final report in negative form and once the protest petition filed by the complainant alongwith the revision petition has been dismissed by the Court below, this Court is of the view that impugned FIR is nothing but misuse and abuse of process of law and hence, all these petitions are accepted and the impugned FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

Consequent upon acceptance of all the three petitions, the stay applications no longer survive and is disposed of.