1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Smt. Praveen Bano & Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2098/2010 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Date of Order :: November 12, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kumar PP for the State. The accused persons have rushed to this Court for quashing of FIR No.230/2010 registered at Police Station Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The complainant, Mohd. Nazim, non-petitioner No.2, had submitted a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chirawa wherein he had alleged that his ancestor had a plot measuring 348 square meter. According to him, petitioner No.1 had no interest in the said plot. Yet still, she, along with petitioner No.2, have sold the plot to the accused Abdul Hakim on 31.03.2009 and the said sale was duly registered on 15.04.2009. According to him, on 02.11.2009, he discovered the fact that petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, in collusion 2 with the officers of the Municipal Council, have sold the said plot to Abdul Hakim. The said complaint was sent by the learned Magistrate to the Police Station for investigation. On the basis of the complaint, a FIR, FIR No.230/2010, was chalked out for offences mentioned herein above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a civil suit is already pending between the parties; the civil suit was, in fact, filed by the complainant prior to the sending of the FIR. Thus, a case of civil nature is being given a criminal coloring. However, the said statement is not correct. For, the date of the offence is 02.11.2009, whereas the civil suit was filed in January 2010. Hence, the criminal machinery was set in motion even prior to the filing of the civil suit. Thus, this contention is meritless. The learned counsel has further contended that petitioner No.1 being the grand daughter-in-law of Umardeen was bequeathed the plot through a will. Therefore, she had the right to sell the plot. However, whether the will is genuine or whether she had a right to sell the plot, it is a matter of investigation at the moment. Hence, the said contention – a plausible defence – cannot be accepted at the initial stage. 3 Lastly, the learned counsel has made a limited prayer to this Court that the Investigating Agency should be directed to consider and to examine the documents which are in favour of the accused petitioners. He has also prayed that the Investigating Officer should be directed to carry out a free and fair investigation. This limited prayer seems to be a reasonable one. For, the Investigating Agency is duty bound to carry out an impartial, free and fair investigation. While the Investigating Agency is duty bound to record the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, and to examine his documents, it is equally duty bound to investigate the case from the point of view of the accused. Therefore, the accused petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and to place all the documents which are in their favour on 30th November, 2010. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider and to examine the validity and veracity of the documents, and to proceed further in the investigation in accordance with law. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, disposed off. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-