1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Govind Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2101/2010) S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: November 12, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Ashok Mishra, for the petitioner. Mr.N.R. Saran, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: Faced with an investigation in a FIR, FIR No.48/2010, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Kotwali, District Sikar, for offence under Section 420 IPC, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with the prayer to quash the said FIR. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased an agricultural land bearing Khasra No.1411, measuring 11 Bigha 1 Biswa, situated at village Fatehpur, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar from its Khatedar tenant, Shri Moti. The said land had been mutated in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the sale- deed, namely mutation No.492/652 dated 24.6.1968. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner had been entered into the Jamabandi. According to the 2 petitioner, when he was about 54 years old, he was adopted by his uncle, Shri Bajrang Lal, through an adoption-deed dated 11.6.1992. The non-petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioners younger brother, Late Shri Ramakant. Since the non-petitioner No.2 is having enmity with the petitioner, with an ill motive to grab the land of the petitioner, she filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 418 and 120-B IPC. Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate sent the said complaint for investigation to the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur. On 08.03.2010, the police registered the said complaint as FIR No.48/2010 for offence under Section 420 IPC. According to the petitioner, the police is commencing investigation on altogether frivolous complaint and is harassing him in the garb of the investigation in conspiracy with the non-petitioner No.2. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Ashok Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in this case. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that according to the revenue record, the land in dispute happens to be in his name. Secondly, while the complainant, Smt. Munni Devi, 3 claims that the land in dispute was gifted to her husband, the gift-deed is neither a registered one, nor she has filed any civil suit on the basis of the said gift-deed. Therefore, offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 418 and 120-B IPC are not made out. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR. Admittedly, the FIR is based on a complaint filed by Smt. Munni Devi before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur. In the complaint, she has levelled a number of allegations. She has also claimed that the land in dispute was gifted to her husband and the present petitioner has no relationship with the said land. Yet, he has sold of this land to others. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of this Court in quashing a FIR is an extremely limited one. This Court is concerned primarily to see if the unrebutted allegations are taken on their face value, whether the offences are made out or not. At this juncture, the Court cannot go into a meticulous examination of the evidence or consider the defence, although a plausible one, being placed by the accused-petitioner. 4 Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner and since the allegations, at this time, have to be considered as unrebutted, prima facie they seems to be against him. Therefore, this Court is certainly not inclined to interfere in quashing the FIR. However, whether a case is actually made out against the petitioner or not, whether a challan should be submitted against him or not, these issues are within the purview of the Investigating Agency. In order to be fair to both the parties, the I.O. is directed to consider the documents placed before him by the accused-petitioner and examine them meticulously in a fair manner and to draw his conclusion in accordance with law. With these directions, this petition is, hereby, disposed of. Consequently, the stay petition also stands disposed of. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki