CRLMP1982/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1982/2010 Pawan Choudhary Vs. The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor and Another Date of Order ::: 27.10.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Dharamveer Tholia, Counsel for petitioner Shri Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor #### By the Court:- This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner for quashment of F.I.R. No.367/2008 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Shri Dharamveer Tholia, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that dispute between parties is essentially of civil nature and civil suit is already pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was filed at the instance of Damodar Prasad through his power of attorney Babu Lal Meena, on 28.01.2006 and their injunction application was rejected by learned CRLMP1982/2010 // 2 // trial court on 15.02.2006, and thereafter appellate court on 26.09.2006 passed status-quo order. Dispute is about certain land which, according to petitioner, consists in Plot No.1 measuring 1335 square yard allotted by Mitra Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur, in name of Madan Punia on 16.07.1988, from whom petitioner purchased said plot by registered sale-deed. Babulal Meena was claiming that he was power of attorney of Damodar Prasad Sharma on the strength of Patta of Plots No.7 and 8 measuring 1282 square yard, issued to him by Amritpuri Vikas Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur, in his letter dated 27.11.2007, addressed to S.H.O., Police Station, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (South) has clearly communicated that there was no person in name of Damodar Prasad Gupta as President of said Society. Learned counsel also referred to Photostat copy of booklet published by Jaipur Development Authority on 31.05.1994 showing allotment of disputed Plots No.7 and 8 of Amrit Nagar (Village Meenawala), Sirsi Road, Jaipur, in CRLMP1982/2010 // 3 // favour of Smt. Vimlesh Kumawat and Smt. Urmila. It was argued that Damodar Prasad, in power of attorney executed in favour of Babulal Meena on 25.11.2005 and will dated 25.11.2005, has mentioned Plots No.7 and 8 to be of Sarad Nagar Colony of Amritpuri Society, whereas disputed plot falls in Amritpuri Nagar (Meenawala). Sarad Nagar Colony is mentioned in the register maintained by stamp vendor, copy of which is placed on record. Learned counsel argued that with regard to same land petitioner filed FIR No.821/2007 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, on 25.10.2007, but the police submitted final report in the matter on premise that this dispute is of civil nature and litigation was pending in civil court. On consideration of all these facts, petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by court concerned. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that all these aspects, which petitioner is pointing out before this court, can be submitted before Investigating Officer and it was premature to presume that Investigating Officer would not consider those documents cited by petitioner before this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that CRLMP1982/2010 // 4 // there should be no cause of urgency when petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail and this is not a matter where this court should exercise it extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that what is alleged in the FIR is that accused party is making efforts to transfer disputed plot in favour of some other person. There is no definite offence so far alleged. The voluminous documents produced before this court by petitioner, he should produce the same before Investigating Officer or S.H.O. Concerned, who would look into them to arrive at final conclusion including final report that was given in the FIR filed by petitioner against other party on the premise that it was a dispute of civil nature wherein litigation was pending before the civil court between the parties. I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter at this stage. Petition is disposed of with observations aforementioned. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//