Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Beer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 15 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:26380]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4297/2014
URN: CRLMP / 6878U / 2014
Beer Singh Son Of Chandgi Ram, R/o Village Jhundsaraya, Post
Patali, Tehsil Faruknagar, District Gurgaon Haryana
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through PP
2. Sanjay Bhandari Son Of Shri Ramraj Bhandari, R/o 123
Ramanuj Path, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Ms. Jaya Mitra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Punia, PP, with
Ms. Divyangana
Mr. Aaditya S.B. Soni, for
complainant, through VC
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
Arguments concluded on ::: May 19, 2026
Reserved on ::: May 19, 2026
Pronounced on ::: July 15, 2026
1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
accused-petitioner under Sections 482 and 483 of Cr.P.C. with
the prayer to quash the FIR No. 326/2014, registered at
Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (South) for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-
B IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.
326/2014 came to be registered at the Police Station Shyam
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]
Nagar, Jaipur (South) on 30.07.2014 for offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. It
has been averred in the FIR that a scheme known as Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Nagar-A is a residential scheme developed
by Sanyukt Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur
under which four plots bearing Nos. 248, 249, 275 and 276,
which are situated in Khasra No. 113 of Village Badarwas
Tehsil Jaipur were allotted to their respective owners.
As per the contents of the FIR, Khasra Nos. 110,
111, 113, 114, 115, 116 and 117 were purchased by Sanyukt
Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur from farmers
Dhanna, Kalu, Bhura, Gopi, Moola, sons of Raghunath and
Ladu, son of Ramchandra through an agreement dated
01.01.1980. It has been alleged that in the said agreement,
Khasra No. 112 was mentioned instead of Khasra No. 113
which was a typographical error, as confirmed by the
Jamabandi of Village Badarwas Jaipur Patwar Halka
Heerapura and by the Rajasthan Gazette Notification dated
25.09.2002.
The informant has averred in the FIR that even
after the said agreement with the Sanyukt Grah Nirman
Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur, the adopted son of Ladu,
namely, Lalluram illegally sold 11 biswas land out of half of
the total 28 bighas 10 biswas of land bearing Khasra No. 113
to accused-petitioner Beer Singh on 04.07.2013 for a meagre
amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- whereas the actual value of the
land runs in crores.
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]
The informant has further averred that Lalluram
also sold 13.22 biswas land out of the land bearing Khasra
No. 113 to Laxman Singh, S/o Shri Sayar Singh Rathore on
22.02.2011, regarding which an FIR No. 480/2014 was
previously lodged by the informant at Police Station JDA
Jaipur, which is under investigation.
3. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that total 51 bighas and 10 biswas land which falls in
Khasra Nos. 107, 110, 111, 113 to 127 situated at Village
Badarwas, Jaipur was under co-tenantship of Ladu, Dhanna,
Kalu, Bhura, Gopi and Moola. Out of the said land, Ladu was
having 1/2 share and others were having an equal share in
the remaining 1/2 share of the land. It is alleged that the
other co-tenants sold one part out of their 1/2 share to the
society and Ladu has never sold any part from his share of
the land to the society.
He has submitted that a suit was filed by Lalluram
(son of Ladu) and Smt. Bodi (wife of Ladu) before the S.D.O.
(First) Jaipur for partition and permanent injunction which
was decreed in their favour on 10.10.2002. Subsequently, the
appeals filed by the respondents before the Revenue
Appellate Authority came to be dismissed on 29.10.2004 and
revision petition preferred against the same also came to be
dismissed on 10.03.2014.
Learned counsel has submitted that Lalluram and
Smt. Bodi lawfully sold 11 biswas land from their share to the
accused-petitioner on 04.07.2013 and another plot from
Khasra No. 113 measuring 266.66 sq yards was sold by him
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]
on 17.12.2013. It is also averred that vide mutation No. 173
dated 20.02.2014, the name of the petitioner has been
entered in the revenue record (Jamabandi) as Khatedar and
thus, accused-petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted
that a prima-facie case has been established against the
accused-petitioner for offences punishable under Sections
420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC.
It is submitted that there is ample evidence on
record which show that the petitioner is a part of conspiracy
for commission of the alleged offences and there is sufficient
evidence for prosecuting the accused petitioner for offences
punishable under Section 120-B IPC in view of the allegations
of cheating and forgery.
5. The basic submissions made on behalf of the
accused petitioner is that there is no prima-facie allegation
against the accused petitioner as he is the bona-fide
purchaser of the land in question and there is no evidence to
connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offence with
the aid of Section 120-B IPC.
6. As regards the quashing of FIR, invoking the
inherent jurisdiction in exercise of Section 482 BNS, the law
is well settled in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Bhajan Lal & Ors.; 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases
335, wherein vide para 102, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as
under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we have
given the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.;
(2021) 19 Supreme Court Cases 401, vide para 13 observed
as under:-
“13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right
from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir
Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC
OnLine PC 29: (1943-44) 71 IA 203: AIR 1945 PC 18],
the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the “rarest of rare
cases”. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its
application for quashing under Section 482CrPC is not to
be confused with the norm which has been formulated in
the context of the death penalty, as explained previously
by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to
secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the
process by Section 482CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police
must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would
be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of
law. During or after investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the application
made by the complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and
the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21: AIR
1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has
the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the
power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider
whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to
consider on merits whether the allegations make out a
cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations
in the FIR.”
8. The petitioner is claiming to be the bona-fide
purchaser submitting that the land bearing khasra No. 113
has not been sold to the society.
9. By the registered sale deed dated 04.07.2013, the
petitioner is said to have purchased the land of khasra No.
113 from its khatedar Lallu Ram. By another sale deed dated
17.12.2013, he is said to have purchased some part of the
land bearing khasra No. 113 from its khatedar Lallu Ram.
One of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner is
that the land bearing khasra No. 113 was never sold to the
society, whereas it has come out that in the sale agreement
khasra No. was incorrectly mentioned as 112 in place on 113.
The area as detailed out in the agreement and the actual area
of khasra No. 112 and 113 reveals that the khasra No. 112
has been wrongly/inadvertently mentioned in the agreement
in place of khasra No. 113. The petitioner is said to have
purchased the land bearing khasra No. 113 from its khatedar
Lallu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 04.07.2013 and
17.12.2013, whereas he has also purchased the plot No. 212
measuring 266 sq. yards of scheme carved by the Sanyukt
Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti after purchasing the land
bearing khasra No. 113 from its khatedar Lallu Ram.
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]
These facts show that the petitioner was well
knowing about the sale of land bearing khasra No. 113 to the
society by the khatedar by way of an agreement. The conduct
of the petitioner is revealed from the fact that he is
purchasing a plot carved out by the society over the land
bearing khasra No. 113 and on the other hand, he is
purchasing the land bearing khasra No. 113 from its
khatedar, which in a manner speaks of the prima facie
collusion of the petitioner with the other accused.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed before this
Court the factual report dated 07.04.2026 as regards the
investigation, wherein the Investigating Agency has collected
sufficient evidence as regards involvement and conspiracy of
the petitioner in respect of the transfer of the land bearing
khasra No. 113.
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Paramjeet
Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.; (2013) 11
Supreme Court Cases 673, vide para Nos. 12 & 13 has
observed as under:-
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious.
This power is to be used sparingly and only for the
purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether
a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not
depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein.
Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A
complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have
a criminal texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26380] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-4297/2014]
nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a
situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court
should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings
to prevent abuse of process of the court.
13. As we have already noted, here the dispute is
essentially about the profit of the hotel business and
its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of
all those issues. The allegation that forged and
fabricated documents are used by the appellant can
also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2’s
attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant
having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The
appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by
Respondent 2 against him alleging offence under
Section 406 IPC. Possession of the shop in question
has also been handed over by the appellant to
Respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion,
continuation of the pending criminal proceedings
would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court
was wrong in holding otherwise.”
12. Taking into consideration the material placed before
this Court and so also the evidence collected during
investigation and the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Court feels that this is
not a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash
the FIR.
13. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is
dismissed.
14. Stay application as well as pending application/s, if
any, also stand/s disposed.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Gaurav Srivastava/177
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 05:09:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 01:11:15 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
