1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.PETITION NO.2047/2010 Subhash Chand & Anr. Vs. State Date of order : 1/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Deepak Asopa for the petitioners. Shri Peeyush Kumar, P.P. for the State. ****** This petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the First Information Report No.62/2010 lodged against them with Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur City (East) be quashed and set aside. Shri Deepak Asopa, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the land in question was actually alloted to Om Prakash Sharma, who is husband of Smt. Rajesh Kumari and father of Neeraj Sharma. Petitioner Subhash Chand Sharma is there power of attorney holder and petitioner Sharad Sharma is son of Subhash Chand Sharma. The land was originally allotted to Om Prakash Sharma S/o Budh Ram Sharma and since this land was lying open Om Prakash Sharma S/o Girija Prasad Sharma, allottee of Mahalaxmi Society, taking advantage of this fact fabricated the allotment letter. The widow Rajesh Kumari and his son Neeraj Sharma approached the authorities in the Cooperative department. The matter was sent 2 to the Arbitration u/s.60 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards the award of the Arbitration dated 15.4.2009 and argued that in that award, the allotment letter of the complainant herein has been held to be illegal. He filed writ petition against that order. The writ petition has been rejected. Learned counsel sought to produce certain material to show that the so called Chowkidar whose reference was given in the FIR was in fact on that day discharging the duties elsewhere. The allegation that the petitioners forceably took possession of the disputed land by throwing belongings of the complainant is baseless. In fact, at the instance of the complainant the petitioners were bound out u/s.107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. to maintain good conduct. Learned PP opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations as it is seen from the FIR are quite serious against the petitioners even if the other party had the fabricating orders passed by the Cooperative Department or the Arbitrator, they could take the possession of the disputed by lawful means and not taking the law into their own hands which is why they are here. It is argued that if the petitioners want to produce some material in their favour, they should approach the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners 3 rejoined and submitted that petitioners have lodged cross case against the complaint for fabrication of the document, but police was not taking any action and no report has been registered against the complainant. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR, I do not find that this matter falls within the parameters of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal-AIR 1992 SC 604 and various subsequent judgments in which it was held that FIR/complaint can be quashed by this Court only if the contents thereof despite being accepted in entirety do not disclose any offence. In other words, allegations contained in the FIR requires investigation. For what the petitioners are stating that many of their documents are not being considered and their report lodged against the respondent are not being registered, they should approach the Investigating Officer and if necessary to Superintendent of Police, whose duty is it to ensure fair investigation into the matter. With those observations, this petition is disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-