HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4107/2012 Shiv Charan Gupta S/o Shri Kedar Lal Gupta, aged about 61 years, resident of 48, Satya Vihar Colony, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. S.H.O. Police Station, Shipra Path, Mansarover, Jaipur. 3. Assistant Commissioner, Police (East), Jaipur Metropolitan City, Varun Path, Mansarover, Jaipur. 4. S.H.O. Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 5. Batti Lal Meena S/o Late Shri Thandi Ram Step Son of Late Shri Mewa Ram, aged about 62 years, R/o Village Dalpura, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, at present resident of 74, Poonam Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.) 6. The Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur-Sr. Advocate Mr. Harsh Saraswat Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta-present in person Mr. B.K. Sharma Mr. Birdhilal For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP Mr. P.C. Sharma Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj Mr. Aditya Kakade-ACP, Mansarover, Jaipur JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No. 486/2012, registered with the Police Station Shipra Path, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 448 and (2 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] 120B IPC and Section 3(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant-respondent No.5 submitted an application, on behalf of the petitioner, seeking allotment of a house under the MLA/Ex- MLA Special Registration Scheme, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Scheme of 1986”) of the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short, "the RHB"). The requisite amount along with the aforesaid application was submitted in the office of RHB on 29.09.1986. Thereafter, allotment was made by the RHB in the name of the complainant-respondent No.5 on 02.01.1992 and House No. 4/173, SFS, Mansarovar, Jaipur (hereinafter, “subject house”) was allotted in his name on "HIRE PURCHASE" basis. Counsel further submits that an agreement was executed between the complainant-respondent No.5 and the petitioner on 30.09.1986 by which the petitioner was given Special Power of Attorney for depositing the requisite amount with the RHB and getting possession of the subject house, allotted by the RHB under the Scheme of 1986. Counsel submits that on 01.08.1994, an agreement was executed by the complainant-respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner by which the complainant-respondent No.5 agreed for cancellation of allotment of the subject house in his name and also accepted that he would have no objection, in case the subject house is allotted in the name of the petitioner. Counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid documents, the petitioner submitted an application before the RHB for making allotment of the subject house in his name and thereafter, the RHB published a notice in the daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika (3 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] on 27.09.1994, inviting objections against cancellation of certain allotments made by the RHB. This notice included the name of the complainant-respondent No.5 against the subject house. Counsel further submits that when no objections were received by the RHB, against cancellation of the complainant-respondent No.5’s allotment, the same was carried out by the RHB vide Office Order dated 19.12.1994 and subsequently, regularized/re-allotted the subject house in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 30.12.1994. Since then, the petitioner is in possession of the subject house. Counsel submits that thereafter, in the year 2006, the complainant-respondent No.5 submitted another application in the office of the RHB for getting allotment of a house under the RHB’s Special Registration Scheme-2006 (hereinafter, “Scheme of 2006”) which is floated for allotment of a house to MLAs and Ex- MLAS. The aforesaid application submitted by the complainant- respondent No.5 was rejected by the RHB on 19.10.2012 on the ground that allotment of a house was already made in his favour by the RHB under the Scheme of 1986 and the complainant- respondent No.5 has suppressed this information, while applying for allotment of house under the Scheme of 2006. Counsel submits that now, after a lapse of almost 18 years from the date of regularization of the subject house in the name of the petitioner, the complainant-respondent No.5 woke up and lodged the impugned FIR wherein a prayer has been made for getting possession of the subject house. Counsel submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive, after a delay of more than eighteen years, hence under these (4 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] circumstances, the impugned FIR as well as the proceedings arising out of the same be quashed and set aside. 3. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2058, Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that when the impugned FIR was registered, efforts were made to obtain the original power of attorney agreement along with the allotment letters from the office of the RHB. The Investigating Officer found that the original files of allotment of the subject house went missing from the office of the RHB. Counsel further submits that the contents of the impugned FIR reveal commission of a cognizable offence. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.5 opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the original application-form for allotment of the subject house was changed by the petitioner for getting allotment of the subject house and in-fact the allotment letter was given by the complainant-respondent No.5 to the petitioner wherein the name and address of the petitioner has been mentioned. Thereafter, whatever correspondences were made by the office of the RHB, were made with the petitioner on the basis of the (5 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] address mentioned in the application. He further submits that the complainant-respondent No.5 is not aware about allotment of the subject house in favour of the petitioner. This fact came into his notice only on 19.10.2012, when he applied for allotment of house by RHB under the Scheme of 2006 and the same was rejected on the grounds that a house was allotted in his name under the Scheme of 1986. Counsel submits that there is no delay on the part of the complainant-respondent No.5 in lodging the impugned FIR since it has been lodged on 23.11.2012, immediately after revealation of the above stated facts on 19.10.2012. The matter requires investigation, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the RHB submits that an application was received in the name of the complainant- respondent No.5 in the office of the RHB and the allotment was made in his favour but on the basis of the agreements dated 30.09.1986 and 01.08.1994, executed between the complainant- respondent No.5 and the petitioner, a notice dated 27.09.1994 was published by the RHB in the daily newspaper ‘Rajasthan Patrika’, inviting objections regarding cancellation of allotment of the subject house in the name of the complainant-respondent No.5. When no objections were received, the allotment made in favour of the complainant-respondent No. 5 was cancelled by the RHB vide Office Order dated 19.12.1994 and the subject house was regularized/re-allotted by the RHB in the favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 30.12.1994. Counsel submits that since the original documents pertaining to the allotment of the (6 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] subject house went missing, a report in this regard was sent to the Police Station Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. A bare perusal of the documents available on record reveals that an application was submitted by the complainant-respondent No.5 under the Scheme of 1986 on 29.09.1986. It appears that pursuant to the above, the subject house was allotted in favour of the complainant-respondent No.5 by the RHB on 02.01.1992. It is the case of the petitioner (which is disputed by the complainant) that an agreement was executed by the complainant-respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner on 01.08.1994 which reads as under:- bdjkjukek vkt fnukad 01-08-1994 dks ;g bdjkjukek eu cRrhyky eh.kk iq= Jh B.Mh jke eh.kk ukrk iq= Jh esok jke eh.kk] HkwriwoZ fo/kk;d] mez djhc 45 o"kZ fuoklh byiqjk rglhy unkSrh] ftyk djkSyh] ftldks vkxs izFke i{k ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk] us f'kopj.k xqIrk iq= Jh dsnkj yky xqIrk mez djhc 42 o"kZ] ewy fuoklh unkSrh] ftyk djkSyh] gky 48 lR; fcgkj dkWyksuh] yky dksBh] t;iqj ftldks vkxs f}rh; i{k lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk] ds gd esa bl izdkj rgjhj o rdehy dj fn;k fd & izFke i{k us HkwriwoZ fo/kk;dksa dh fof'k"B ;kstuk esa jktLFkku gkmflax cksMZ dks ekuljksoj Ldhe es ,d edku ekfld fd'rksa ij vkoaVu djus gsrq izkFkZuk&i= Øekad 188 fnukad 29-09-1986 ds }kjk vkosnu fd;k vkSj jftLVªs'ku djk;kA mDr vkosnu ij esjs uke mPp vk; oxZ & ch dSVsfxjh dk ,d edku mDr Ldhe esa vkjf{kr fd;k x;k (7 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] blds ckn fnukad 02-01-1992 dks edku la- 4@173 cksMZa }kjk vyksV fd;k vkSj mlds i'pkr eq>s dCtk fn;k x;kA mDr edku ds jftLVªs'ku dks gh fnukad 30-09-1986 dks gh eSus f}rh; i{k dks bl 'krZ ds lkFk ns fn;k Fkk fd og gh mDr edku dh ekfld o vU; leLr jkf'k tks cksMZ }kjk ekaxh tk;sxh] gkmflax cksMZ esa tek djk;sxk vkSj lHkh i=kpkj gkmflax cksMZ ls ogh djsxk vkSj edku feyus ij edku ogh j[ksxk vkSj mlh dk jgsxkA jftLVªs'ku ds i'pkr~ cksMZ }kjk ekaxh xbZ jkf'k f}rh; i{k }kjk esjs izfrfuf/k ds :i esa tek djokbZ gqbZ gSA fnukad 30-09-1986 dks fyf[kr vf/kdkj&i=@eq[rkjukek eSus f}rh; i{k dks ns fn;k x;k FkkA vc pwafd cksMZ dh vf/klwpuk vuqlkj vyksV fd;s x;s edkuksa dks ;fn vyksVh us fdlh vU; dks bdjkjukes ds }kjk csp fn;k gS ;k dCtk laHkyk fn;k gS ;k eq[rkjukes ls ns fn;k gS ;k cksMZ jkf'k tek djkus esa fMQkYV fd;k gS rks cksMZ ml edku dk ewy vkoaVh ds uke ls fujLr dj dCts/kkjh ds gd esa dj jgk gS o'krsZa dCts/kkjh cdk;k cksMZ jkf'k ,deq'r tek djkus dks rS;kj gksA blfy;s vc pkgs x;s vuqlkj ;g bdjkjukek fy[k jgk gWw rkfd cksMZ edku la- 4@173 dk vyksVesaV esjs uke ls fujLr dj f}rh; i{k ds uke djnsA ,slk djus es eq>s dksbZ ,rjkt ugha gSA ;g bdjkukes dk dalhMjs'ku ogh ekuk tkrk gS tks f}rh; i{k us bl edku ds isVs cksMZ esa jkf'k tek djkbZ gSA edku dk dCtk f}rh; i{k ds ikl igys ls gh gSA vkSj ogh j[ksxkA esjk bl edku ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugh jgsxk vkSj u esjs okfjlksa dk jgsxkA 9. Bare perusal of the language of the aforesaid agreement reveals that the factum of allotment of the subject house in favour of complainant-respondent No.5 has been admitted by him and he (8 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] has also agreed that he would not have any objection in case his allotment is cancelled and in case the subject house is allotted in favour of the petitioner. Now, the respondent No. 5 is disputing the execution of the aforesaid agreement. 10. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid agreement dated 01.08.1994, the petitioner submitted an application for regularisation of the subject house in his name. The RHB, instead of straightway cancelling the allotment made in favour of the complainant-respondent No.5, adhered to the due procedure and invited objections by publishing a public notice in the newspaper on 27.09.1994. When no objections were received by the office of the RHB, the subject house was regularised in the name of the petitioner on 30.12.1994. Under such circumstances, with no stretch of imagination, a prudent person would believe that the complainant-respondent No.5 remained unaware about allotment of the subject house in his name and the subsequent transfer of possession to the petitioner. Similarly, no prudent person can believe that complainant-respondent No.5 took no steps to obtain possession of the house w.e.f 1994 until the impugned FIR was lodged in 2012, particularly when he had applied for allotment under the Scheme of 1986 and was subsequently allotted the subject house in 1994. The conduct of the complainant- respondent No.5 reveals that he was sitting over the matter for a period of more than eighteen years and it was only on 19.10.2012, when his application dated 10.04.2006, for allotment of house under the Scheme of 2006, was rejected by the RHB on the grounds that a house was already allotted in his name in the year 1992 under the Scheme of 1986, he became wiser and (9 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] lodged the impugned FIR as an afterthought, levelling all kinds of allegations against the petitioner. 11. Bare perusal of the FIR and the allegations made therein reveals that by way of lodging the impugned FIR, the complainant-respondent No.5 has prayed for getting the possession of the subject house from the petitioner. Basically, the complainant-respondent No.5 wants a civil dispute, pertaining to the possession of the subject house, to be decided in a criminal case. If at all, the complainant-respondent No.5 has any right over the subject house, he could have approached the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. But in any case, any civil dispute cannot be allowed to be turned into a criminal proceeding, by filing an FIR in order to give it the colour of a criminal case. 12. The other allegation made by the complainant-respondent No.5 is that he never executed any agreement in favour of the petitioner for obtaining possession of the subject house and his signatures have been fabricated by the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the allotment of the subject house was obtained by the petitioner from the RHB. In fact the complainant-respondent No.5 applied for allotment of a house in the year 1986 and thereafter, allotment was made in his favour by the RHB in 1992. Subsequently, the subject house was regularized in the name of the petitioner in the year 1994. The question which emerges is as to why the complainant-respondent No.5 remained silent for about twelve years since 1994 till 2006 and why he has submitted the second application in the year 2006 for getting allotment of a house under the Scheme of 2006?; Why he submitted an application again in 2006 before the RHB for getting another (10 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] allotment of house, which was already allotted to him in the year 1992? Why did he lodge the impugned FIR after 18 years delay that too when his second application was rejected in the year 2012? No prudent person can believe as to why a person like the complainant would submit another application for allotment of a house which was already allotted to him 14 years back. 13. Had any of the alleged offences been committed against him, he could have lodged the FIR immediately in the year 1994. The original file of allotment of the subject house went missing from the office of the RHB and the same was not traceable inspite of several efforts of the RHB and the Investigating Agency. At this juncture, the analysis of the disputed signatures is not possible in absence of the original documents and files. Due to the complainant-respondent No.5 keeping mum for a long period of 18 years, the current situation has arisen, for which none other except he himself is responsible. 14. Bare perusal of the impugned FIR indicates that the whole and sole purpose of lodging of the FIR by the complainant- respondent No. 5 is to get the possession of the subject house. In the considered opinion of this Court, in order to get possession of a house, a civil suit is required to be instituted and civil proceedings are required to be initiated for cancellation of any allotment in favour of the petitioner. But instead of doing so, the complainant-respondent No.5 has initiated the impugned criminal proceedings giving a criminal colour to the dispute which is purely of civil nature. The complainant-respondent No.5 has the option to approach the appropriate Court seeking redressal of his grievance (11 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] for getting possession of the subject house by way of initiating civil proceedings. 15. The allotment in favour of the petitioner has been made on the basis of the alleged agreement and Special Power of Attorney executed by the complainant-respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner. Now, after a delay of 18 years, the complainant- respondent No.5 is disputing the aforesaid documents. Had the complainant-respondent No.5 remained vigilant at the relevant time and approached the authorities in time, the situation could have been different. No proof or documents have been placed on record by the complainant-respondent No.5 to show that after allotment of the subject house in his favour in the year 1992, any steps were taken by him for getting possession of the same. If the possession was not handed over to the complainant-respondent No.5, inspite of allotment in his favour, then why further appropriate steps were not taken by him for getting possession of the same and why he has applied again for allotment of a house under Scheme of 2006. All these questions create doubt about the bona fides of the complainant-respondent No.5. These disputed facts can be adjudicated by a Competent Civil Court after recording the evidence of both sides. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping silence for more than eighteen years and lodging FIR after a delay of around two decades, amounts to abuse of the process of law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan (Supra) Para 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment being relevant are reproduced as under:- (12 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] “22. At this point, we must hasten to add that the complaint was filed after a delay of nearly eight years. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has failed to impress the Court about the reason for the delay and hence this fact further raises a suspicion about the bona fides of the complainant/respondent No.2. The delay in lodging of the complaint and FIR, coupled with the vague allegations do not inspire any confidence in the Court to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the appellant. Further, the complainant/respondent No.2 had an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit claiming damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights which has not been availed but a route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. The appellant therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant are unsustainable. 23. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami, it was held by this Court that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would cause undue harassment to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 IPC is made out. 24. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an (13 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 25. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judgment in the light of the facts of this case, we find that none of the offences alleged against the appellant herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against the appellant herein have been made with a mala fide (14 of 14) [CRLMP-4107/2012] intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102, extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of this case. In our view, it is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue." 17. Hence, under these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that lodging of FIR after a great delay of more than 18 years, amounts to abuse of the process of law. Continuation of criminal proceedings, arising out of the impugned FIR, would also tantamount to abuse of the process of law and therefore, the same cannot be allowed to continue. 18. In view of the reasons stated hereinabove, the present criminal misc. petition stands allowed and the impugned FIR and all the proceedings arising out therefrom stand quashed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 19. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that if any civil proceedings are initiated by the respondent No. 5 against the petitioner for cancellation of the allotment and for getting the possession of the house before any competent Civil Court of law, then these proceedings would be decided by the said Civil Court strictly in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence produced by both the sides on the record, without being influenced by any of the observation made by this Court while passing this order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/40