[2025:RJ-JP:31409] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1404/2025 Ramniwas Daga Son Of Shri Gopi Kishan Daga, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Near Pareeko Ki Bagichi, Chandpole, Ward No. 13, Jodhpur- 342001, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Rajkumar Ajmera Son Of Shri P.D. Ajmera, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of 126, Tonk Road, Jai Jawan Colony Ii, Near Income Tax Colony, Vidhayak Puri, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhrigu Sharma with Ms. Samraddhi Sharma, Mr. Palash Srivastava, Mr. Ritik Yadav, Mr. Bharat Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Ms. Manjeet Kaur for the complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/08/2025 1. Instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner, for quashing of FIR No.51/2025 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West), for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 2. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the contents of FIR, on their face value give rise to a dispute of civil nature at the most and fundamental ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are absent. It has inter alia been contended that [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] as per the FIR, allegation against the petitioner is that he has prepared false and fabricated three sale receipts of even dated 15.02.2022 in respect of three plots bearing No. 06, 07 and 08 situated at Scheme No. 16- B, Girnar Colony, Hanuman Nagar Extension, Khatipura, Jaipur. It is further contention of the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already filed civil suit for specific performance, on the basis of alleged sale receipts which are indeed in the nature of sale agreement by their contents and all the original documents have been produced before the Civil Court. In the civil suit, after hearing the complainant, the Civil Court has passed interim stay order of status quo. It is further contended that the civil Court is seized with the issue of genuineness, legality and validity of three sale receipts, which shall be decided by the Civil Court on merits, after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Hence, in such backdrop, lodging of FIR subsequently to filing of civil suit and continuation of investigation thereupon, is in sheer misuse of process of law as much as would lead to miscarriage of justice. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it is desirable to quash the impugned FIR in the bud. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. : [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 438] (ii) Rajendra & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2512/2014, at High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] 4. Per contra, contention of learned counsel for the complainant is that it is well established law that the civil proceedings can be continued parallel to the criminal proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the contents of FIR give rise to cognizable nature of offences, hence, at the stage of investigation, impugned FIR may not be quashed. 5. In addition, counsel for the complainant submits that during course of investigation, police procured the original three sale receipts from the Civil Court and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) of State. As per the report of FSL, signatures of sellers on the receipts have not been matched with their admitted signatures. The copy of report of FSL has been placed on record. Thus, prima facie case of fabrication of sale receipts stands in favour of complainant and initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, parallel to civil proceedings, initiated by accused petitioner may not be held faulted. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgments of the various High Courts, which are listed as follows: (i) Anil Pandi v. State of Uttarakhand: Criminal Misc. Application No. 1637/2016, at High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital (ii) Chaitanya Garg v. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7871/2022, at High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 7. Learned counsel for State has opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] submissions made on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant and prayed to dismiss the criminal misc. petition. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and other material available on record. 9. On a careful and meaningful reading of contents of FIR, primarily, this Court finds that the allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for preparing three forged receipts in respect of three plots belonging to complainant, his brother and mother. Through these sale receipts deal of sale of each plot has been shown to be against total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs) out of which an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs) in respect of each plot has been stated to be paid to the seller and balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) has been agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The three receipts are available on record. 10. It is noteworthy that a perusal of three sale receipts goes to show that same are indeed an agreement to sale under the nomenclature of sale receipt, one between the petitioner- purchaser and complainant-seller and second between petitioner- purchaser with complainant’s brother and third one with complainant’s mother. It is an undisputed fact, as transpired from the record, that prior to lodging the impugned FIR by complainant on 11.02.2025, petitioner has already led three separate civil suits for specific performance on 29.01.2025, fundamentally relying upon the alleged sale receipts (sale agreements). In the civil suit, petitioner admits the ownership and actual possession of all three plots in question with the respective seller and a prayer has been [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] made, to make absolute his title by way of seeking execution of sale deed in his favour in furtherance to the sale receipts (sale agreements) as also to obtain actual and physical possession of plots in question. 11. It is further noteworthy that these three sale receipts, no where contains recital of transfer of possession of the plot in question to petitioner, moreover, counsel for the petitioner, in his oral arguments, do admits that the possession of all three plots is lying with the sellers. It is further undisputed fact that the service of notices of civil suit has been effected upon the respective seller (defendant in the civil suit), including the complainant, and thereafter Civil Court has passed interim stay order of status quo in respect of all three plots. All three original sale receipts (sale agreements) were produced by the petitioner on record before the Civil Court. 12. In the opinion of this Court although, executant (seller) of sale receipts does not admit its execution rather states these receipts to be forged nevertheless the genuineness, validity and evidential value of these three sale receipts in question, shall obviously be decided by the Civil Court, after appreciation of the respective evidences of both the parties. At this initial stage, merely on the basis of an allegation of the complainant that the sale receipts are forged and fabricated documents, prepared by petitioner, it may not be assumed that such an allegation itself give rise to occurrence of cognizable offences; more so, this Court finds that essential ingredients to constitute alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC are also absent in the FIR. [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] 13. Counsel for the respondent-compainant sought to convince the Court for commission of forgery and conspiracy by petitioner with other persons, alleging inter alia that two witnesses namely Hanuman Singh and Vijay Ajmera are common in all three sale receipts and complainant does not know both of these witnesses, hence, a presumption be drawn that the petitioner having conspiracy with these two persons, have prepared these three forged sale receipts. This Court finds that the three sale receipts have been used by petitioner, for filing a civil suit of specific performance and not for any other purposes. Neither petitioner is claiming his ownership nor possession over the three plots in question, belonging to complainant, his brother and mother, nor otherwise has caused any wrongful loss through these sale receipts to the complainant, his brother and mother except filing a civil suit for specific performance. It is the burden of petitioner to prove execution of three sale receipts as also to produce both witnesses before the Civil Court. Hence, at this stage, on the basis of contention put forth by the counsel for complainant, no criminal conspiracy of petitioner with other two alleged witnesses may be assumed. 14. The law in respect of quashing of FIR by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, saved by virtue of Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 CrPC), is well settled that such jurisdiction may be exercised carefully, sparingly and in rarest of rare cases, more particularly where the allegations levelled in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case of alleged offences against the accused. 15. It is further well settled that if the dispute is of civil nature, same may not be given a cloak of criminal offence and such an FIR can be nipped in the bud. In support of such legal proposition, the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) SCC (Cri) 513], Rajeshbhai Muljibhal Patel & Others v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2020) 3 SCC 794] and Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [(2013) 11 SCC 673], may be referred. 16. In case of Paramjeet Batra (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held and observed in Para No. 12 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 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.” (emphasis supplied) In case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhal Patel (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the situation where the civil nature of dispute cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no. 20 and 21 are being reproduced hereunder: “20. Be that as it may, in the Summary Suit No.105/2015, leave to defend was granted to respondent No.2- [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] 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-Mahendra kumar. It was only thereafter, complaint was filed by Mahendra kumar, based on which, FIR 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 & 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. 21. It is also to be pointed out that in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of handwriting expert is a relevant piece of evidence; but it is not a conclusive evidence. It is always open to the plaintiff-appellant No.3 to adduce appropriate evidence to disprove the opinion of the handwriting expert. That apart, Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the Court to compare the admitted and disputed writings for the purpose of forming its own opinion. Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered. Continuation of FIR No.I-194/2016, in our view, would amount to abuse of the process of Court and the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 Crl.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Application No.2735/2017 to quash the FIR I-194/2016 is to be allowed.” (emphasis supplied) In case of G.Sagar Suri (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held as under: “13. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.” (emphasis supplied) 17. Having considered the entire factual matrix and the legal position, this Court finds that merely on account of filing civil suits for specific performance of contract by the petitioner on the basis of three separate sale receipts, which have been alleged by the complainant to be forged, petitioner may not be allowed to be prosecuted and FIR may not be allowed to be registered. In the opinion of this Court, once the civil suit has already been led by the petitioner wherein the complainant, his brother and mother would get opportunity to defend and to take a plea that the sale receipts are not genuine documents, rather forged documents, it is not justifiable to allow registration of FIR and continuation of the investigation thereupon. The dispute between the parties, primarily appears to be of civil nature relating to sale and purchase of the immovable property. At this stage, it can be observed that till now neither petitioner has drawn any illegal gain nor the complainant, his brother and mother have been put to any wrongful loss; the ownership and possession of the plots in question are continuing with the complainant, his brother and mother, hence, merely on account of filing a civil suit for specific performance on the basis of such sale receipts, and in totality of facts and circumstances, discussed hereinabove, putting the [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] criminal law in motion and registration of the impugned FIR is virtually harassment of petitioner and misuse of process of law. The complainant may mount pressure upon petitioner, in the guise of registration of impugned FIR to settle the civil dispute as he desires. The case in hand also falls within the guidelines, framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction for quashing the FIR. Hence, this Court finds it a fit case to quash the impugned FIR. 18. The judgment referred by the counsel for respondent- complainant delivered in case of Anil Pandi (supra), passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, same is distinguishable from facts of the present case, since in that case allegation was tempering and adding two lines in the registered trust deed and the trust deed was used to siphon off the property of trust. There elements of criminal act and occurrence of cognizable offence was well evident, which are absent in the case in hand. 19. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon and referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1248] to contend that the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to pendency of parallel civil proceedings. There is no quarrel about such principle of law but in the case at hand, this Court does not find occurrence of any cognizable offence by petitioner merely due to filing of a civil suit for specific performance on the basis of sale receipts, which according to complainant have been prepared forgedly. This Court has concluded that merely on the allegation of complainant that sale receipts have been prepared forgedly, a criminal law may not be allowed to be set in motion, [2025:RJ-JP:31409] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-1404/2025] when other factors are not available. Hence, the ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kathyayini (supra) does not apply to the facts of present case. 13. As far as the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Chaitanya Garg (supra) the Coordinate Bench clearly observed that the allegations in the FIR give rise to cognizable offences whereas in the present case, this Court has opined contrary. Hence, this judgment too is not applicable to the facts of case in hand. 20. The net outcome of discussion and enunciation made hereinabove, is that in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned FIR at behest of complainant has been registered by police in sheer misuse of process of law. Hence, to secure ends of justice and to prevent misuse of process of criminal law, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed at this stage itself. 21. Accordingly, as a final result the impugned FIR is hereby quashed. 22. It is hereby observed that in case after conclusion of the trial of the civil suit for specific performance, if the Civil Court observes that the three sale receipts (sale transactions) are not genuine, it shall be open for the complainant to prosecute the petitioner, through criminal proceedings. 23. Instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. 24. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/198