Judgment · High Court

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. Vineet Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Rawal, P.P. Mr. H.L.Kela, for the respondent No.2. <><><> The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.112/2009 registered at Police Statiion Osian, District Jodhpur for offences under Sectioins 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed an F.I.R. with the allegation that he owns a plot in the village Osian, District Jodhpur with the patta having been issued in his favour by the Gram Panchayat, Osian. It is further stated that on 12.5.2009, the complainant came to now that some construction was being raised on his plot on which, he made enquiries and came to know that one Hanuman Das son of Moti Lal was raising construction on the plot in question. When the complainant contacted the aforesaid Shri Hanuman Das, it was revealed that Hanuman Das had purchased the plot through a registered sale deed executed by the petitioner.

It was alleged that on a perusal of the registered document it was revealed that the petitioner had forged the document because the neighbourhood, which was mentioned in the sale deed was coinciding with the complainant's plot. The report thus, filed by the complainant, was registered as F.I.R. No.112/2009. The petitioner earlier approached this Court seeking quashing of the very F.I.R. by way of filing S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1359/2011 and this Court while deciding the misc. petition, gave liberty to the petitioner to file all his documents before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer was directed to consider the documents of the petitioner before filing the result of the investigation. Now the instant misc. petition has been filed with the prayer that subsequent to the earlier petition being decided, the parties have arrived at a compromise and in this regard, an agreement is said to have been executed between the parties, which has been annexed to the petition as Annexure-1.

It is mentioned in the agreement that the error arose because of the clerical mistake committed by the Panchayat while issuing the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. It has further been averred that the proceedings initiated by both the parties before the SDM seeking cacellation of the lease deed issued in favour of each other, have been withdrawn. It has also been submitted that Hanuman Das, to whom the petitioner had sold the plot, has been compensated and the title and the possession of the complainant's plot remains undisturbed and uneffected. A copy of the order-sheets of the proceedings under the Panchayati Raj Act, whereby the proceedings have been withdrawn on the basis of the compromise have also been annexed to the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Shri H.L.Kela accompanied with the complainant admits the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties and states that the complainant does not have any objection rather urges that the F.I.R. impugned be quashed.

In view of the aforesaid facts and after going through the F.I.R. impugned, this Court is of the opinion that permitting the further investigation of the F.I.R. to be carried out now is not at all warranted. Essentially, the dispute between the parties arose as a result of the clerical error in issuance of the patta to the petitioner by the Panchayat. Now the disputes have been settled and all the parties have expressed the satisfaction by way of the agreement (Annex.1) that no further grievances remain for prosecuting the F.I.R. impugned. Even otherwise, the F.I.R. and the investigation carried out so far do not disclose such facts, which can justify the continuance of the investigation. In view of the aforesaid facts, the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby accepted. The F.I.R. impugned and all subsequent proceedings thereupon are hereby quashed. /tarun/ (SANDEEP MEHTA), J.