[2026:RJ-JP:26344]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7365/2019

URN: CRLMP / 13689U / 2019

Vijaypal Arya S/o Late Shri Kumbharam Arya, R/o Takiya Ki

Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Sanjay Kishore Agarwal S/o Shri Mangalkishore Agarwal,

R/o 2/533, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 427/2020

URN: CRLMP / 784U / 2020

1. Amar Singh S/o Shri Lekhram, R/o Takia Ki Chowki,

Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

2. Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Vidhyadhar Singh Khatkad, R/o Takia

Ki Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

3. Chandra Prakash Guleria S/o Shri Isharram Choudhary,

R/o Plot No.48, Krishna Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

4. Gopiram S/o Shri Mangalram Raiger, R/o Takia Ki Chowki,

Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

5. Harinarayan Meena S/o Shri Nathuram, R/o Takia Ki

Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

6. Hanuman Singh S/o Geegaram, R/o Takia Ki Chowki,

Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

7. Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh, R/o Takia Ki

Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

8. Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, R/o Takia Ki

Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

9. Rajendra Singh Punia S/o Shri Sube Singh, R/o Takia Ki

Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

10. Surja Ram Meel S/o Shri Danaram, R/o Plot No.a-133,

Valmiki Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (2 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

11. Sanjeev Arya S/o Shri Radhakrishna Chaudhary, R/o Takia

Ki Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

12. Sumit Sharma S/o Shri Lalaram Sharma, R/o Takia Ki

Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Raj.

13. Smt. Kamla Beniwal W/o Late Ramchandra Beniwal, R/o

Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Sanjay Kishore Agrawal S/o Shri Mangal Kishore Agrawal,

R/o 2/533, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

----Respondents

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2093/2022

URN: CRLMP / 2959U / 2022

Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Shri Shiv Prasad Balai, Resident Of

Takiya Ki Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Sanjay Kishore Agrawal Son Of Shri Mangal Kishore

Agrawal, Resident Of 2/533, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur

(Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Raj Bajwa, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Deepak Bishnoi & Mr.

Rishabh Bhidasra in CRLMP

No.7365/2019 & 427/2020

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar & Mr.

Amandeep for Mr. Rajesh Gadwal in

CRLMP No.2093/2022

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Public Prosecutor

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain with Mr. Sandesh

Khandelwal, Ms. Shobha Sharma &

Mr. Ajay Sharma for complainant

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (3 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

Arguments concluded on ::: May 20, 2026

Reserved on ::: May 20, 2026

Pronounced on ::: July 16, 2026

1. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed

by the accused-petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

against the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur

(for short, 'the learned Revisional Court') whereby the order of

taking cognizance dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Court of

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short, 'the learned trial Court') was

upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/non-

petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 16.08.2012

against the accused petitioners for offences punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC mentioning

therein that in 1951, the State Government of Rajasthan

formulated a scheme to lease out the vacant unused agricultural

lands for 20 years and the said scheme was amended in the year

1952 to provide that the khatedari rights would be granted only if

the land is properly utilized for the first five years, thus, the period

was extended to 25 years, after which, the land was to revert to

the Government.

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (4 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

As per the contents of the complaint, in accordance

with the said scheme, on 05.01.1953, a land measuring

218

3

4 acres

was allotted on lease for agricultural purposes to the Cooperative

Society of Rajendra Singh and others, namely, Kisan Samuhik

Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited Jhotwara Jaipur which came to be

registered on 13.02.1953, however, later on, the members of the

society started engaging in work other than the agriculture and

subsequently obtained khatedari rights in the aforesaid land by

submitting wrong facts. It has been alleged that after expiry of the

25-year period in 1978, the Revenue Authorities did not re-record

the land in the name of the State Government and regarding this,

JDA also wrote a letter for acquisition of 17 bigha 10 biswa and

204 bigha 3 biswa of the land.

The complainant has averred that the petitioner offered

15% developed land in lieu of acquisition compensation based on

false facts and the Additional Registrar also admitted in his report

that the petitioners intended to grab and sell the land fraudulently.

He has further alleged that none of the accused petitioners are the

members of the original society and they fraudulently obtained

land measuring 1516 square meters valuing Rs. 400 crores and

fraudulently presented the documents showing 8 crores loan taken

by the society. The complainant has averred that no action is

being taken against the petitioners as all of them are influential

people.

3. Subsequently, the said complaint was sent to the Police

Station Kardhani, Jaipur (West), after which, a final report was

filed by the Police on 15.05.2014. Pursuant to this, the learned

trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners and other

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (5 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

persons vide its impugned order dated 15.07.2019. Being

aggrieved of the said order of cognizance, the petitioners have

filed a revision petition which came to be dismissed by the learned

Revisional Court vide its order dated 15.10.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in S.B. Criminal

Minscellaneous Petition No. 7365/2019 has submitted that neither

the lease deed nor any other material was made available on

record which implies that ingredients of Sections 467, 468 and

471 IPC were not proved and the learned trial Court did not even

call for the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition No. 427/2020 has submitted that the

validity of the khatedari rights are yet to be determined as the

alleged resolutions of the cooperative society have been stayed by

the Registrar, appeals and revision also remain pending and four

References Nos. 104/2014, 105/2014, 106/2014 and 107/2014

which were filed by the State Government before the learned

Board of Revenue after an inordinate delay of 60 days also remain

pending.

He further submitted that the petitioners acquired

khatedari rights in the year 1958 as per the amended provisions

of law (Subsequent Revenue Department Notification No. F.3

(132) Rev. II/51 of March 1952) and the State Authorities have

themselves admitted the ownership of the society in various

litigations. He also submitted that the present case has been

lodged in order to avoid just compensation after acquisition of the

land in dispute and further, no government official has been made

an accused in the present case.

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (6 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition No. 2093/2022 has submitted that the

learned trial Court did not consider the two complaints filed by the

petitioners regarding damage of property.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel

for the complainant opposed the prayer made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners.

8. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has

rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners after taking into

consideration the material available on record. The learned

Revisional Court has also upheld the order of cognizance on the

basis of the evidence available against the petitioners as regards

the cheating and forgery.

9. The brief facts relevant for consideration and disposal

of the issue raised in the present petition are that a Notification

dated 15.03.1951 was issued regarding allotment of the land for

agricultural purposes for a period of 20 years. Subsequently, an

amended Notification dated 9/25.03.1952 was issued, wherein,

Clause 2 provided that the said land would initially be allotted on

lease for the first five years. After expiry of the period of lease,

Khatedari rights shall be granted subject to the provisions of Rule

6 if the Government is satisfied that the land has been fully and

properly exploited.

Clause 6 of the said Notification provides that if the

lessee satisfies the authority who has granted the lease that he

has failed to exploit or improve some part of the land due to

unforeseen causes beyond his control, the said authority may,

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (7 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

looking to the expenditure and labour of the lessee, extend the

period of lease upto a maximum period of three years.

10. The Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan

vide its order dated 05.01.1953 issued an allotment order under

the provisions of Notification dated 15.03.1952 making allotment

of certain land which is subject matter of this case to one Rajendra

Singh and fifteen others on behalf of the Better Farming Co-

operative Society and also to certain landless tenants.

11. The Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited,

which is a registered society under the provisions of the Co-

operative Societies Act, 1943 was entered as Khatedar of the land

in question of Samwat Year 2015 to 2034. The Government of

Rajasthan issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1984 for area of village Gokulpura and Jothwara

for Prithviraj Nagar Yojana. After following the process under the

Land Acquisition Act, two awards were passed on 20/31.07.1991

and 16/31.07.1991. The R egistrar Co-operative Societies issued

an order dated 02.07.2009 for winding up / liquidation of the

Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited. However, the stay

order dated 02.07.2009 was set aside by the Ministry of Co-

operative Societies vide its order dated 07.09.2010.

12. On 16.08.2012, the complainant Sanjay Kishore

Agarwal filed the complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.

9, Jaipur Metropolitan against 17 members of the society arraying

them an accused for the offence punishable under Section 420,

467, 468, 471, 406, 120B IPC alleging that the land was given on

lease vide order dated 05.01.1953 for a period of 20 years to the

Sahakari Samiti and further alleged that office bearers of the

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (8 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

society, by submitting incorrect facts, have obtained the Khatedari

rights in the year 1958. Learned Magistrate vide order dated

17.10.2013 sent the complaint to the Police for inquiry under

Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the Police after making inquiry submitted

its report with a conclusion that prima facie offences are made out

against the petitioners.

13. A writ petition was filed challenging the notification

dated 06.01.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act and so also the notification dated 28.07.1989 issued under

Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and so also two awards and

the said writ petition is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court

for adjudication. The stay application for interim relief is said to

have been dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2014 and against the

rejection of the interim relief, a D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.

918/2014 was preferred by the society which came to be disposed

by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide its order dated 12.06.2014.

Against the order of Honb'le Division Bench, SLP (C.) Nos. 18040-

18041/2014) was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated

20.08.2014 directed the respondent-State and Jaipur

Development Authority to reserve 25% of the developed area

taken over from the appellant-Samiti pending for final disposal of

the writ petition before the High Court.

14. On 05.08.2014, Tehsildar filed an application under

Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the District

Collector for reference and the District Collector, Jaipur vide its

order dated 13.04.2015 ordered for reference under Section 82 of

the of the Land Revenue Act, 1956. Against the order dated

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (9 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

13.04.2015 passed by the District Collector, Jaipur, S.B. Civil Writ

Petition Nos. 5910/2016, 5911/2016, 6121/2016 and 6658/2016

have been filed which are still sub-judice before the High Court.

15. After the order of learned Magistrate i.e. 15.07.2019

and the order of learned Additional District Judge dated

15.10.2019 which are under challenge, the Board of Revenue vide

its order dated 26.06.2023 allowed the references in favour of the

State. Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited filed an

appeal under Section 10 read with Section 9 of the Land Revenue

Act, 1956 before the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue

vide its order dated on 30.07.2024 passed an interim order in

favour of the Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited.

16. From the aforesaid facts, it is very much clear that the

petitioners have been granted Khatedari rights. The issue

regarding payment of compensation of the acquired land which is

said to be in Khatedari of the petitioners is still sub judice before

the High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has already ordered to

keep reserve 25% of the developed area and the issue regarding

references made by the Tehsildar and thereafter, orders passed by

the District Collector are also still sub-judice before the Board of

Revenue and so also before the High Court by way of writ

petitions. The conclusion of the pendency of the litigations qua the

land-in-question and acquiring the Khatedari rights and acquisition

of the land thereafter are still sub-judice before the various legal

forums including the High Court. Until and unless these issues,

pending before the various legal forums including High Court and

the Board of Revenue are not concluded to the extent of acquiring

the Khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners and the acquisition

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (10 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

of land and the fact that who would be entitled for the

compensation and to what extent, it cannot be said that the

petitioners have played forgery or they have misled in seeking the

Khatedari rights. It is a fact on record that the petitioners have

been allowed Khatedari rights in the year 1958. In view of the

provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955

(for short, "the Act of 1955) which speaks that the person who is

in possession of the agriculture land on the date of the

commencement of the Act of 1955, the said person in possession

would be entitled for the Khatedari rights.

17. As per the facts on record, the Registrar Co-operative

Society Rajasthan Jaipur vide its order dated 02.07.2009, ordered

for winding up of the society while considering various allegations.

However, the Hon'ble Co-operative Minister, Government of

Rajasthan vide order dated 09.09.2010 set aside the order of

winding up with certain observations.

18. In view of the above, the Court finds that the issue of

acquiring Khatedari rights and thereafter acquisition of the land in

question and the issue that who would be entitled for receiving the

compensation for the acquired land are sub-judice before the High

Court. The reference initiated qua the land-in-question by the

Government is also sub-judice before the Board of Revenue.

Meaning thereby, the issue regarding acquiring Khatedari rights is

sub judice before the various legal forums. Because the references

which have been submitted by the Tehsildar and ordered by the

District Collector, it is to be decided whether the Khatedari rights

acquired by the petitioners are just and proper ? In case, it is

decided that they have obtained the Khatedari rights as per the

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (11 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

law, then it cannot be said that they have obtained Khatedari

rights by cheating and forgery.

19. The Khatedari rights said to have been given to the

Kisan Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited in the year 1958. As

per the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953

(for short, " the Act of 1953) the offences and penalties have been

provided in the Act. It is provided in the Act of 1953 that if a

society furnishes any information which has been acquired for the

purposes of this Act by the Registrar or other persons duly

authorized by him in writing in this behalf, which is found to be

false, then such person can be penalized under the provisions of

Section 71 of the Act of 1953 and the similar provisions in regard

to the penalty are also there under the Rajasthan Co-operative

Societies Act, 1965. Sections 70, 71 and 74 of the Act of 1953

are quoted as under:-

"70. Default by a society, officer, member

or any employee. -It shall be an offence

under this Act if-

(a) a society with a working capital of Rs.

10,000 or more or an officer, member or

employee thereof fails with-out any

reasonable excuse to give any notice, send

any re-turn or document, do or allow to be

done anything which the society, officer,

member or employee is by this Act required

to give, send, do or allow to be done;

b) a society or an officer, member or

employee thereof wilfully neglects or refuses

to do any act or to furnish any information

required for the purposes of this Act by the

Registrar or other person duly authorised by

him in writing in this behalf; or

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (12 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

(c) a society or an officer, member or

employee thereof wilfully makes a false return

or furnishes false information; or

(d) any person wilfully or without any

reasonable excuse disobeys any summons,

requisition or lawfully written order issued

under the provisions of this Act or does not

furnish any information lawfully required from

him by a person authorised to do so under the

provisions of this Act.

71. Penalty for offences not otherwise

provided for.

Every society, officer or past officer or

member or past member of a society or other

person guilty of an offence under this Act for

which no penalty is expressly provided therein

shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 50.

74. Cognizance of offences.

(1) No Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of

the first class shall try any offence under this

Act.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, every

offence under this Act shall, for the purpose of

the said Code, be deemed to be non-

cognizable.

(3) No prosecution under this Act shall be

lodged without the previous sanction of the

Registrar which shall not be given except after

hearing the party concerned."

20. The aforesaid provisions clearly speak that in cases

where the society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative

Societies Act, 1953 willfully submitted the false information, it is

liable to be penalized under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-

operative Societies Act, 1953. When there is a special law for

penalizing someone for doing an act, in that situation, no

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (13 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

proceedings can be initiated for offences punishable under Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Paramjeet

Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand And Ors. ((2013) 11 SCC

673) has held as under:

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious.

This power is to be used sparingly and only for the

purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any

court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether

a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not

depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein.

Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are

present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A

complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have

a criminal texture. But the High Court must see

whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil

nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a

situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact,

adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court

should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings

to prevent abuse of process of the court.

13. As we have already noted, here the dispute is

essentially about the profit of the hotel business and

its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of

all those issues. The allegation that forged and

fabricated documents are used by the appellant can

also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2's

attempt to file similar complaint against the

appellant having failed, he has filed the present

complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in

another case filed by Respondent 2 against him

alleging offence under Section 406 IPC. Possession of

the shop in question has also been handed over by

the appellant to Respondent 2. In such a situation, in

our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal

proceedings would be abuse of the process of law.

The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.

14. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated

29-9-2011 [Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttaranchal,

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 287 of 2005,

order dated 29-9-2011 (Utt)] passed by the

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (14 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

Uttarakhand High Court is set aside. The entire

proceedings of Criminal Case No. 723 of 2005

(Charge-sheet No. 32 of 2005), and the order of

cognizance dated 22-3-2005 passed thereon by the

Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh

Nagar against the appellant, Respondents 3 and 4

and against accused Rajpal for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,

447, 448 read with Section 34 IPC are quashed and

set aside. This order will however have no effect on

the pending civil suit between the parties. Needless

to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall

decide it independently and in accordance with law."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of

Sardar Ali Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through

Principal ((2020) 12 SCC 51) as under:

"8. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant

has purchased the plot in question by sale deed

dated 29-12-1993 which was registered on 5-1-

1994. The father of the 2nd respondent died on 3-

12-1997. Though the registered sale deed is of

1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit which is

pending in OS No. 160 of 2008, only in the year

2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that

the aforesaid sale deed was got executed by the

appellant and his brother, by making use of the

acquaintance with his father, in a false and

fraudulent manner. There is no allegation of

impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit

filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the

appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a

signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Though the

suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent

has chosen to file the criminal complaint only in the

year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation. With

regard to the validity of the sale deed, matter is

seized up before the competent civil court and it is

for the civil court to decide whether any fraud is

played or not by the appellant, on the late father of

the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed.

When the very same issue is seized up before the

civil court, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue

criminal proceedings against the appellant for

alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467,

468 and 471 IPC. Although, it is contended by the

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (15 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that

complaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the

same time it appears, there is no reason for

lodging private complaint in the year 2012. The

sale deed on which basis the title and possession is

claimed by the appellant was registered on 5-1-

1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years. Even

after filing of the suit on 24-8-2008 there is further

about 4 years' delay in filing the criminal complaint

against the appellant herein. Allowing the

proceedings to go on against the appellant who is

stated to be about 87 years, in the above set of

facts, is nothing but abuse of the process.

9. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of

impersonation and forgery of the signatures in the

suit filed by the 2nd respondent. In any event,

when the suit filed by the 2nd respondent for

cancellation of sale deed is pending consideration

before the competent court of law, the 2nd

respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal

proceedings by improving his case. Having regard

to serious factual disputes which are of civil nature,

for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2nd

respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal

proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of

law. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the

considered view that the criminal proceedings are

fit to be quashed by allowing this appeal."

In another case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and

Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat And Anr. Etc. (SLP (Crl.) Nos.

142-143 of 2019) , decided on 10.02.2020, the Hon'ble Apex

Court observed as under:

"18. Be that as it may, in the Summary Suit

No.105/2015, leave to defend was granted to

respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar on 19.04.2016.

On the application filed by appellant No.3 in the

said Summary Suit No.105/2015, four receipts filed

in the suit were sent to the handwriting expert. The

handwriting expert has opined that signatures in all

the four receipts did not tally with the sample

signatures which were of respondent No.2-

Mahendrakumar. It was only thereafter, complaint

was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (16 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

No.I-194/2016 was registered on 28.12.2016

against the appellants for the offences punishable

under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and

114 IPC. As rightly contended by the learned

counsel for the appellants, in the Summary Suit

No.105/2015, issue No.5 has been framed by the

Court “whether the defendant proved that the

plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally

and created forged receipts”. When the issue as to

the genuineness of the receipts is pending

consideration in the civil suit, in our view, the FIR

ought not to have been allowed to continue as it

would prejudice the interest of the parties and the

stand taken by them in the civil suit. "

22. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-

respondent has referred the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy

& Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712) which is as under:

"14. The High Court noted that the statement of the

Sub-Registrar makes it certain that the thumb

impression found on the partition deed dated

24.03.2005 was the thumb impression of Yellappa

Reddy. Therefore, an offence as alleged either under

Sections 468 or 471 IPC is not made out. Further,

the partition deed referred above was drawn up on

24.03.2005 and the respondents, in an effort to get

their names entered in the revenue records, have

brought up a family tree dated 18.01.2011 in line

with the partition deed dated 24.03.2005. The High

Court noted that, no doubt when respondents had

obtained the family tree, they were bound to disclose

the names of daughters of late Yellappa Reddy. But

since the attempt by the respondents was to get

their names entered in the revenue records based on

the partition deed dated 24.03.2005, it cannot be

held that the respondents had committed an offence

under Section 420 IPC. It may be that they had

misrepresented about the family of Yellappa Reddy

but that in itself was not an offence punishable under

Section 420 IPC. The High Court thus concluded that,

considering the suit for partition is already pending

where the compensation determined by the

Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited, is secured,

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (17 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

it is appropriate that criminal proceedings initiated

against the respondents is put to an end.

17. It is clear from the facts that a prima facie case

for criminal conspiracy and cheating exists against

respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that they, along

with their uncles Guruva Reddy and Umedha Reddy,

have attempted to defraud their aunts by creating a

forged family tree and partition deed with a motive to

gain all the monetary award for land in question

bypassing the appellant and her sisters. They

succeeded in their plan until Sudhanva Reddy

revealed it to the authorities by a letter. The High

Court has erroneously relied upon the statement of

Sub-Registrar who stated that partition deed dated

24.03.2005 was presented for registration on

26.03.2005 and due to health reasons concerning

K.G.Yellappa Reddy, his thumb impressions were

secured at his house in presence of the Sub-

Registrar. However, we must note this statement of

the Sub-Registrar has not been put to cross

examination. It would be unwise to rely on unverified

testimony of a Sub-Registrar to ascertain the

genuineness of Partition deed. The High Court erred

in heavily relying on his statement to conclude that

the Partition deed was genuine and thus no offence

is made out against the respondents under Sections

463 and 464 IPC."

23. Having considered the aforesaid judgments, this Court

is of the view that if criminal colour is given to an issue of civil

nature then such proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside

by exercising inherent jurisdiction vested to the High Court under

Section 528 B.N.S.S. (Old 482 Cr.P.C.). From the facts of the case,

the Court can safely held that the dispute is regarding the grant of

Khatedari rights to the petitioners and the litigations at various

legal forums are still sub judice. The Khatedari rights which were

granted have not yet been set aside and until someone continues

with the Khatedari rights, he would be entitled for all the benefits

accruing from acquiring such Khatedari rights. The learned Courts

below have ignored all the material facts regarding pendency of

[2026:RJ-JP:26344] (18 of 18) [CRLMP-7365/2019]

the litigations qua the land-in-question for which the allegations

have been made against the petitioners for committing forgery for

seeking Khatedari rights. The Courts below have also ignored the

material fact that when there is a specific law to punish someone

for committing an act as like in the present case the alleagtions of

submitting a false information and the society is liable to be

penalized under the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies

Act, 1953 then in that situation, one cannot be prosecuted for

offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

24. In view of the discussions made above, the Court feels

that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly,

the present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed.

25. The impugned order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the

Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur and the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by

the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan,

Jaipur, are hereby, quashed and set aside.

26. In view of the order passed in the main petitions, stay

application as well as pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

26-28/SHRUTI SHARMA