Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Amar Singh S/O Shri Lekhram B/C Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:26344]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7365/2019
URN: CRLMP / 13689U / 2019
Vijaypal Arya S/o Late Shri Kumbharam Arya, R/o Takiya Ki
Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Sanjay Kishore Agarwal S/o Shri Mangalkishore Agarwal,
R/o 2/533, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 427/2020
URN: CRLMP / 784U / 2020
1. Amar Singh S/o Shri Lekhram, R/o Takia Ki Chowki,
Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
2. Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Vidhyadhar Singh Khatkad, R/o Takia
Ki Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
3. Chandra Prakash Guleria S/o Shri Isharram Choudhary,
R/o Plot No.48, Krishna Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.
4. Gopiram S/o Shri Mangalram Raiger, R/o Takia Ki Chowki,
Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
5. Harinarayan Meena S/o Shri Nathuram, R/o Takia Ki
Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
6. Hanuman Singh S/o Geegaram, R/o Takia Ki Chowki,
Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
7. Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh, R/o Takia Ki
Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
8. Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, R/o Takia Ki
Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
9. Rajendra Singh Punia S/o Shri Sube Singh, R/o Takia Ki
Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
10. Surja Ram Meel S/o Shri Danaram, R/o Plot No.a-133,
Valmiki Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (2 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
11. Sanjeev Arya S/o Shri Radhakrishna Chaudhary, R/o Takia
Ki Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
12. Sumit Sharma S/o Shri Lalaram Sharma, R/o Takia Ki
Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.
13. Smt. Kamla Beniwal W/o Late Ramchandra Beniwal, R/o
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Sanjay Kishore Agrawal S/o Shri Mangal Kishore Agrawal,
R/o 2/533, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2093/2022
URN: CRLMP / 2959U / 2022
Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Shri Shiv Prasad Balai, Resident Of
Takiya Ki Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Sanjay Kishore Agrawal Son Of Shri Mangal Kishore
Agrawal, Resident Of 2/533, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Raj Bajwa, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Deepak Bishnoi & Mr.
Rishabh Bhidasra in CRLMP
No.7365/2019 & 427/2020
Mr. Pushpendra Kumar & Mr.
Amandeep for Mr. Rajesh Gadwal in
CRLMP No.2093/2022
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Public Prosecutor
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain with Mr. Sandesh
Khandelwal, Ms. Shobha Sharma &
Mr. Ajay Sharma for complainant
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (3 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
Arguments concluded on ::: May 20, 2026
Reserved on ::: May 20, 2026
Pronounced on ::: July 16, 2026
1. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed
by the accused-petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
against the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur
(for short, ‘the learned Revisional Court’) whereby the order of
taking cognizance dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) was
upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/non-
petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 16.08.2012
against the accused petitioners for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC mentioning
therein that in 1951, the State Government of Rajasthan
formulated a scheme to lease out the vacant unused agricultural
lands for 20 years and the said scheme was amended in the year
1952 to provide that the khatedari rights would be granted only if
the land is properly utilized for the first five years, thus, the period
was extended to 25 years, after which, the land was to revert to
the Government.
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (4 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
As per the contents of the complaint, in accordance
3
with the said scheme, on 05.01.1953, a land measuring 218 4 acres
was allotted on lease for agricultural purposes to the Cooperative
Society of Rajendra Singh and others, namely, Kisan Samuhik
Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited Jhotwara Jaipur which came to be
registered on 13.02.1953, however, later on, the members of the
society started engaging in work other than the agriculture and
subsequently obtained khatedari rights in the aforesaid land by
submitting wrong facts. It has been alleged that after expiry of the
25-year period in 1978, the Revenue Authorities did not re-record
the land in the name of the State Government and regarding this,
JDA also wrote a letter for acquisition of 17 bigha 10 biswa and
204 bigha 3 biswa of the land.
The complainant has averred that the petitioner offered
15% developed land in lieu of acquisition compensation based on
false facts and the Additional Registrar also admitted in his report
that the petitioners intended to grab and sell the land fraudulently.
He has further alleged that none of the accused petitioners are the
members of the original society and they fraudulently obtained
land measuring 1516 square meters valuing Rs. 400 crores and
fraudulently presented the documents showing 8 crores loan taken
by the society. The complainant has averred that no action is
being taken against the petitioners as all of them are influential
people.
3. Subsequently, the said complaint was sent to the Police
Station Kardhani, Jaipur (West), after which, a final report was
filed by the Police on 15.05.2014. Pursuant to this, the learned
trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners and other
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (5 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
persons vide its impugned order dated 15.07.2019. Being
aggrieved of the said order of cognizance, the petitioners have
filed a revision petition which came to be dismissed by the learned
Revisional Court vide its order dated 15.10.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in S.B. Criminal
Minscellaneous Petition No. 7365/2019 has submitted that neither
the lease deed nor any other material was made available on
record which implies that ingredients of Sections 467, 468 and
471 IPC were not proved and the learned trial Court did not even
call for the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 427/2020 has submitted that the
validity of the khatedari rights are yet to be determined as the
alleged resolutions of the cooperative society have been stayed by
the Registrar, appeals and revision also remain pending and four
References Nos. 104/2014, 105/2014, 106/2014 and 107/2014
which were filed by the State Government before the learned
Board of Revenue after an inordinate delay of 60 days also remain
pending.
He further submitted that the petitioners acquired
khatedari rights in the year 1958 as per the amended provisions
of law (Subsequent Revenue Department Notification No. F.3
(132) Rev. II/51 of March 1952) and the State Authorities have
themselves admitted the ownership of the society in various
litigations. He also submitted that the present case has been
lodged in order to avoid just compensation after acquisition of the
land in dispute and further, no government official has been made
an accused in the present case.
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (6 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 2093/2022 has submitted that the
learned trial Court did not consider the two complaints filed by the
petitioners regarding damage of property.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel
for the complainant opposed the prayer made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
8. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has
rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners after taking into
consideration the material available on record. The learned
Revisional Court has also upheld the order of cognizance on the
basis of the evidence available against the petitioners as regards
the cheating and forgery.
9. The brief facts relevant for consideration and disposal
of the issue raised in the present petition are that a Notification
dated 15.03.1951 was issued regarding allotment of the land for
agricultural purposes for a period of 20 years. Subsequently, an
amended Notification dated 9/25.03.1952 was issued, wherein,
Clause 2 provided that the said land would initially be allotted on
lease for the first five years. After expiry of the period of lease,
Khatedari rights shall be granted subject to the provisions of Rule
6 if the Government is satisfied that the land has been fully and
properly exploited.
Clause 6 of the said Notification provides that if the
lessee satisfies the authority who has granted the lease that he
has failed to exploit or improve some part of the land due to
unforeseen causes beyond his control, the said authority may,
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (7 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
looking to the expenditure and labour of the lessee, extend the
period of lease upto a maximum period of three years.
10. The Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan
vide its order dated 05.01.1953 issued an allotment order under
the provisions of Notification dated 15.03.1952 making allotment
of certain land which is subject matter of this case to one Rajendra
Singh and fifteen others on behalf of the Better Farming Co-
operative Society and also to certain landless tenants.
11. The Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited,
which is a registered society under the provisions of the Co-
operative Societies Act, 1943 was entered as Khatedar of the land
in question of Samwat Year 2015 to 2034. The Government of
Rajasthan issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 for area of village Gokulpura and Jothwara
for Prithviraj Nagar Yojana. After following the process under the
Land Acquisition Act, two awards were passed on 20/31.07.1991
and 16/31.07.1991. The Registrar Co-operative Societies issued
an order dated 02.07.2009 for winding up / liquidation of the
Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited. However, the stay
order dated 02.07.2009 was set aside by the Ministry of Co-
operative Societies vide its order dated 07.09.2010.
12. On 16.08.2012, the complainant Sanjay Kishore
Agarwal filed the complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.
9, Jaipur Metropolitan against 17 members of the society arraying
them an accused for the offence punishable under Section 420,
467, 468, 471, 406, 120B IPC alleging that the land was given on
lease vide order dated 05.01.1953 for a period of 20 years to the
Sahakari Samiti and further alleged that office bearers of the
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (8 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
society, by submitting incorrect facts, have obtained the Khatedari
rights in the year 1958. Learned Magistrate vide order dated
17.10.2013 sent the complaint to the Police for inquiry under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the Police after making inquiry submitted
its report with a conclusion that prima facie offences are made out
against the petitioners.
13. A writ petition was filed challenging the notification
dated 06.01.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act and so also the notification dated 28.07.1989 issued under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and so also two awards and
the said writ petition is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court
for adjudication. The stay application for interim relief is said to
have been dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2014 and against the
rejection of the interim relief, a D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.
918/2014 was preferred by the society which came to be disposed
by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide its order dated 12.06.2014.
Against the order of Honb’le Division Bench, SLP (C.) Nos. 18040-
18041/2014) was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated
20.08.2014 directed the respondent-State and Jaipur
Development Authority to reserve 25% of the developed area
taken over from the appellant-Samiti pending for final disposal of
the writ petition before the High Court.
14. On 05.08.2014, Tehsildar filed an application under
Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the District
Collector for reference and the District Collector, Jaipur vide its
order dated 13.04.2015 ordered for reference under Section 82 of
the of the Land Revenue Act, 1956. Against the order dated
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (9 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
13.04.2015 passed by the District Collector, Jaipur, S.B. Civil Writ
Petition Nos. 5910/2016, 5911/2016, 6121/2016 and 6658/2016
have been filed which are still sub-judice before the High Court.
15. After the order of learned Magistrate i.e. 15.07.2019
and the order of learned Additional District Judge dated
15.10.2019 which are under challenge, the Board of Revenue vide
its order dated 26.06.2023 allowed the references in favour of the
State. Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited filed an
appeal under Section 10 read with Section 9 of the Land Revenue
Act, 1956 before the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue
vide its order dated on 30.07.2024 passed an interim order in
favour of the Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited.
16. From the aforesaid facts, it is very much clear that the
petitioners have been granted Khatedari rights. The issue
regarding payment of compensation of the acquired land which is
said to be in Khatedari of the petitioners is still sub judice before
the High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has already ordered to
keep reserve 25% of the developed area and the issue regarding
references made by the Tehsildar and thereafter, orders passed by
the District Collector are also still sub-judice before the Board of
Revenue and so also before the High Court by way of writ
petitions. The conclusion of the pendency of the litigations qua the
land-in-question and acquiring the Khatedari rights and acquisition
of the land thereafter are still sub-judice before the various legal
forums including the High Court. Until and unless these issues,
pending before the various legal forums including High Court and
the Board of Revenue are not concluded to the extent of acquiring
the Khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners and the acquisition
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (10 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
of land and the fact that who would be entitled for the
compensation and to what extent, it cannot be said that the
petitioners have played forgery or they have misled in seeking the
Khatedari rights. It is a fact on record that the petitioners have
been allowed Khatedari rights in the year 1958. In view of the
provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955
(for short, “the Act of 1955) which speaks that the person who is
in possession of the agriculture land on the date of the
commencement of the Act of 1955, the said person in possession
would be entitled for the Khatedari rights.
17. As per the facts on record, the Registrar Co-operative
Society Rajasthan Jaipur vide its order dated 02.07.2009, ordered
for winding up of the society while considering various allegations.
However, the Hon’ble Co-operative Minister, Government of
Rajasthan vide order dated 09.09.2010 set aside the order of
winding up with certain observations.
18. In view of the above, the Court finds that the issue of
acquiring Khatedari rights and thereafter acquisition of the land in
question and the issue that who would be entitled for receiving the
compensation for the acquired land are sub-judice before the High
Court. The reference initiated qua the land-in-question by the
Government is also sub-judice before the Board of Revenue.
Meaning thereby, the issue regarding acquiring Khatedari rights is
sub judice before the various legal forums. Because the references
which have been submitted by the Tehsildar and ordered by the
District Collector, it is to be decided whether the Khatedari rights
acquired by the petitioners are just and proper ? In case, it is
decided that they have obtained the Khatedari rights as per the
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (11 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
law, then it cannot be said that they have obtained Khatedari
rights by cheating and forgery.
19. The Khatedari rights said to have been given to the
Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited in the year 1958. As
per the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953
(for short, ” the Act of 1953) the offences and penalties have been
provided in the Act. It is provided in the Act of 1953 that if a
society furnishes any information which has been acquired for the
purposes of this Act by the Registrar or other persons duly
authorized by him in writing in this behalf, which is found to be
false, then such person can be penalized under the provisions of
Section 71 of the Act of 1953 and the similar provisions in regard
to the penalty are also there under the Rajasthan Co-operative
Societies Act, 1965. Sections 70, 71 and 74 of the Act of 1953
are quoted as under:-
“70. Default by a society, officer, member
or any employee. -It shall be an offence
under this Act if-
(a) a society with a working capital of Rs.
10,000 or more or an officer, member or
employee thereof fails with-out any
reasonable excuse to give any notice, send
any re-turn or document, do or allow to be
done anything which the society, officer,
member or employee is by this Act required
to give, send, do or allow to be done;
b) a society or an officer, member or
employee thereof wilfully neglects or refuses
to do any act or to furnish any information
required for the purposes of this Act by the
Registrar or other person duly authorised by
him in writing in this behalf; or
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (12 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
(c) a society or an officer, member or
employee thereof wilfully makes a false return
or furnishes false information; or
(d) any person wilfully or without any
reasonable excuse disobeys any summons,
requisition or lawfully written order issued
under the provisions of this Act or does not
furnish any information lawfully required from
him by a person authorised to do so under the
provisions of this Act.
71. Penalty for offences not otherwise
provided for.
Every society, officer or past officer or
member or past member of a society or other
person guilty of an offence under this Act for
which no penalty is expressly provided therein
shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 50.
74. Cognizance of offences.
(1) No Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of
the first class shall try any offence under this
Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, every
offence under this Act shall, for the purpose of
the said Code, be deemed to be non-
cognizable.
(3) No prosecution under this Act shall be
lodged without the previous sanction of the
Registrar which shall not be given except after
hearing the party concerned.”
20. The aforesaid provisions clearly speak that in cases
where the society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative
Societies Act, 1953 willfully submitted the false information, it is
liable to be penalized under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-
operative Societies Act, 1953. When there is a special law for
penalizing someone for doing an act, in that situation, no
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (13 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
proceedings can be initiated for offences punishable under Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Paramjeet
Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand And Ors. ((2013) 11 SCC
673) has held 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
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.
14. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated
29-9-2011 [Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttaranchal,
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 287 of 2005,
order dated 29-9-2011 (Utt)] passed by the(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (14 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]Uttarakhand High Court is set aside. The entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 723 of 2005
(Charge-sheet No. 32 of 2005), and the order of
cognizance dated 22-3-2005 passed thereon by the
Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh
Nagar against the appellant, Respondents 3 and 4
and against accused Rajpal for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,
447, 448 read with Section 34 IPC are quashed and
set aside. This order will however have no effect on
the pending civil suit between the parties. Needless
to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall
decide it independently and in accordance with law.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of
Sardar Ali Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through
Principal ((2020) 12 SCC 51) as under:
“8. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant
has purchased the plot in question by sale deed
dated 29-12-1993 which was registered on 5-1-
1994. The father of the 2nd respondent died on 3-
12-1997. Though the registered sale deed is of
1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit which is
pending in OS No. 160 of 2008, only in the year
2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that
the aforesaid sale deed was got executed by the
appellant and his brother, by making use of the
acquaintance with his father, in a false and
fraudulent manner. There is no allegation of
impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit
filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the
appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a
signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Though the
suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent
has chosen to file the criminal complaint only in the
year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation. With
regard to the validity of the sale deed, matter is
seized up before the competent civil court and it is
for the civil court to decide whether any fraud is
played or not by the appellant, on the late father of
the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed.
When the very same issue is seized up before the
civil court, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue
criminal proceedings against the appellant for
alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467,
468 and 471 IPC. Although, it is contended by the(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (15 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that
complaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the
same time it appears, there is no reason for
lodging private complaint in the year 2012. The
sale deed on which basis the title and possession is
claimed by the appellant was registered on 5-1-
1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years. Even
after filing of the suit on 24-8-2008 there is further
about 4 years’ delay in filing the criminal complaint
against the appellant herein. Allowing the
proceedings to go on against the appellant who is
stated to be about 87 years, in the above set of
facts, is nothing but abuse of the process.
9. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of
impersonation and forgery of the signatures in the
suit filed by the 2nd respondent. In any event,
when the suit filed by the 2nd respondent for
cancellation of sale deed is pending consideration
before the competent court of law, the 2nd
respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal
proceedings by improving his case. Having regard
to serious factual disputes which are of civil nature,
for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2nd
respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal
proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of
law. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the
considered view that the criminal proceedings are
fit to be quashed by allowing this appeal.”
In another case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and
Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat And Anr. Etc. (SLP (Crl.) Nos.
142-143 of 2019), decided on 10.02.2020, the Hon’ble Apex
Court observed as under:
“18. Be that as it may, in the Summary Suit
No.105/2015, leave to defend was granted to
respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar on 19.04.2016.
On the application filed by appellant No.3 in the
said Summary Suit No.105/2015, four receipts filed
in the suit were sent to the handwriting expert. The
handwriting expert has opined that signatures in all
the four receipts did not tally with the sample
signatures which were of respondent No.2-
Mahendrakumar. It was only thereafter, complaint
was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (16 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]No.I-194/2016 was registered on 28.12.2016
against the appellants for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
114 IPC. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the appellants, in the Summary Suit
No.105/2015, issue No.5 has been framed by the
Court “whether the defendant proved that the
plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally
and created forged receipts”. When the issue as to
the genuineness of the receipts is pending
consideration in the civil suit, in our view, the FIR
ought not to have been allowed to continue as it
would prejudice the interest of the parties and the
stand taken by them in the civil suit. ”
22. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-
respondent has referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy
& Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712) which is as under:
“14. The High Court noted that the statement of the
Sub-Registrar makes it certain that the thumb
impression found on the partition deed dated
24.03.2005 was the thumb impression of Yellappa
Reddy. Therefore, an offence as alleged either under
Sections 468 or 471 IPC is not made out. Further,
the partition deed referred above was drawn up on
24.03.2005 and the respondents, in an effort to get
their names entered in the revenue records, have
brought up a family tree dated 18.01.2011 in line
with the partition deed dated 24.03.2005. The High
Court noted that, no doubt when respondents had
obtained the family tree, they were bound to disclose
the names of daughters of late Yellappa Reddy. But
since the attempt by the respondents was to get
their names entered in the revenue records based on
the partition deed dated 24.03.2005, it cannot be
held that the respondents had committed an offence
under Section 420 IPC. It may be that they had
misrepresented about the family of Yellappa Reddy
but that in itself was not an offence punishable under
Section 420 IPC. The High Court thus concluded that,
considering the suit for partition is already pending
where the compensation determined by the
Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited, is secured,(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (17 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]it is appropriate that criminal proceedings initiated
against the respondents is put to an end.
17. It is clear from the facts that a prima facie case
for criminal conspiracy and cheating exists against
respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that they, along
with their uncles Guruva Reddy and Umedha Reddy,
have attempted to defraud their aunts by creating a
forged family tree and partition deed with a motive to
gain all the monetary award for land in question
bypassing the appellant and her sisters. They
succeeded in their plan until Sudhanva Reddy
revealed it to the authorities by a letter. The High
Court has erroneously relied upon the statement of
Sub-Registrar who stated that partition deed dated
24.03.2005 was presented for registration on
26.03.2005 and due to health reasons concerning
K.G.Yellappa Reddy, his thumb impressions were
secured at his house in presence of the Sub-
Registrar. However, we must note this statement of
the Sub-Registrar has not been put to cross
examination. It would be unwise to rely on unverified
testimony of a Sub-Registrar to ascertain the
genuineness of Partition deed. The High Court erred
in heavily relying on his statement to conclude that
the Partition deed was genuine and thus no offence
is made out against the respondents under Sections
463 and 464 IPC.”
23. Having considered the aforesaid judgments, this Court
is of the view that if criminal colour is given to an issue of civil
nature then such proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside
by exercising inherent jurisdiction vested to the High Court under
Section 528 B.N.S.S. (Old 482 Cr.P.C.). From the facts of the case,
the Court can safely held that the dispute is regarding the grant of
Khatedari rights to the petitioners and the litigations at various
legal forums are still sub judice. The Khatedari rights which were
granted have not yet been set aside and until someone continues
with the Khatedari rights, he would be entitled for all the benefits
accruing from acquiring such Khatedari rights. The learned Courts
below have ignored all the material facts regarding pendency of
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (18 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]
the litigations qua the land-in-question for which the allegations
have been made against the petitioners for committing forgery for
seeking Khatedari rights. The Courts below have also ignored the
material fact that when there is a specific law to punish someone
for committing an act as like in the present case the alleagtions of
submitting a false information and the society is liable to be
penalized under the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies
Act, 1953 then in that situation, one cannot be prosecuted for
offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
24. In view of the discussions made above, the Court feels
that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly,
the present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed.
25. The impugned order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur and the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan,
Jaipur, are hereby, quashed and set aside.
26. In view of the order passed in the main petitions, stay
application as well as pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
26-28/SHRUTI SHARMA
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:01:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 11:34:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
