Nawal Kishor Sharma @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

A co-ordinate Bench on 16.1.2018 had dismissed the same prayer of the co-accused Bhupendra Singh vide SBCRLMP No. 5504/2017. The order

dated 16.1.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench in case of co-accused, reads as under:-

“This criminal misc. petition has been preferred by accusedpetitioner Bhupender Singh with the prayer to quash and setaside FIR No.211/2013

registered at P.S. JDA, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor for the

State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case for the alleged offences is made out on bare perusal of the FIR. The land bearing Khasaras

No.51, 52, 53 & 55 situated at Jhalana Chod Maharani Farm, Jaipur belongs to Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, which was

purchased by it from its original khatedar Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi. Meena Colony Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited is laying a baseless claim

over this property and has wrongly developed a scheme namely Raghuvihar in this property. The Society has issued pattas to its members without

having any ownership over the land in question. One of such allottees Gordhan Singh has lodged this FIR, which is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2 has contended that the said property consisting of Khasara Nos.51,52,53

& 55 was never purchased by Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited from Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi. On the contrary, pattas of such

land were issued to Smt. Reena Kumari and Smt. Kamal Kumari with the consent or knowledge of Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi. This fact has been

acknowledged by Rajmata Gayatri Devi herself vide certificate dated 28.05.1975. Thereafter, Smt. Reena Kumari and Smt. Kamal Kumari executed

two agreements to sale this property in favour of Navjeevan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited on dated 08.05.1975 and 15.06.1975. Thereafter on

15.07.1981, Navjeevan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. through its Secretary Jagdish Prasad Sharma executed an agreement to transfer this

property in favour of Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited in furtherance of its resolution dated 30.06.1981. Thus, the claim laid by

Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited over this land is baseless and the documents, if any, submitted in this regard are forged and

fabricated.

Learned Public Prosecutor, while referring to the status report of investigation received from SHO, PS Shipra Path, Jaipur South vide letter dated

05.12.2017, has stated that after detailed investigation, the documents of Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited with regard to the

property in question have been found to be forged and fabricated. Jaipur Development Authority has also filed an FIR No.509/2016 in this regard.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by rival sides. Both the sides have referred to various documents in regard to the

property in dispute to substantiate their claim over it.

On perusal of the revenue record submitted on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the land of Khasara Nos. 51, 52, 53, 55 % 57 was originally

entered in the name of Farm Shri Maharani Ji Sahiba. These khasara numbers were later on converted into 61,62,63,64 65 as per the settlement

record.

Both the rival parties are claiming to have purchased this land under an agreement to sale. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to

agreements to sale Ann.-2, Ann.-3 & Ann.-4 executed on 15.10.1978, 05.11.1978 & 05.11.1979 respectively between Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi and

Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited. Whereas, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has contended that with the

consent and knowledge of Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi, the land was given to Smt. Reena Kumari and Smt.Kamal Kumari, from whom the land was

purchased by Navjeevan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited under two agreements to sale and thereafter, vide agreement dated 15.07.1981,

Secretary Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma of Navjeevan Grih Nirman Sahakari

Samiti Limited transferred this land to Meena Colony Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited. An enquiry report given on 31.05.2016 by Regional Audit

Officer of Cooperative Societies, Jaipur Division, Jaipur has also been referred by learned counsel for the respondent, wherein it is mentioned that

Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited has been dissolved and administrator has been appointed. Report dated 12.10.2017 of Deputy

Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur City has also been referred to by learned counsel for the respondent, whereby the recommendation has been

made for initiating legal proceedings in regard to the forged and fabricated documents prepared by Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti

Limited, its office bearers and employee Bhupender Singh, who happens to be petitioner herein. As per this report, the office bearers of the Society

have also been declared ineligible under Section 28(11) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2011 and the Society is said to be in liquidation.

Having considered the facts mentioned herein-above, it is found that rival claims have been laid by both the sides in regard to the property in dispute

and the documents relied upon by both the sides require a thorough investigation. In such circumstance, it cannot be inferred that FIR No.211/2013

does not make out any prima facie case for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and therefore, deserves to be quashed and

set-aside.

It is an established legal proposition that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised with great care and circumspection and FIR can

be quashed only in the circumstance when the facts mentioned therein do not disclose any commission of the offence even if the facts are taken on

face value. The case in hand does not appear in the nature stated above.

Resultantly, this Court does not feel inclined to allow the petition and the same is dismissed. â€​

The investigation is in progress. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to split the case of each accused.

The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner to raise all arguments available to him before the

trial court in case investigating agency propose to prosecute him.

As prayed, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.