[2025:RJ-JP:40638] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6096/2019 Kelabai W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, aged about 65 Years, R/o Bundi Bijnora, Thana Anta, Police Station & District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Ghanshyam S/o Shri Latoor Lal, adopted S/o Badri Lal, aged about 45 Years, R/o Bamulia, Gajanpura, Tehsil & District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.M. Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Lalit Kishore Joshi on behalf of Mr. Arvind Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/10/2025 1. By way of filing this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Case, Baran, District-Baran, whereby the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran, for taking cognizance against the non-petitioner/accused has been quashed. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that one criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner/complainant against the non-petitioner/accused for committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC on 25.05.2016. It was contended that the non-petitioner/accused Ghanshyam allegedly prepared one forged document to deprive [2025:RJ-JP:40638] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6096/2019] the petitioner/complainant of her rights in respect of agricultural land. 3. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the adoption deed dated 04.06.1998 prepared by the non-petitioner/accused was a fabricated document and on the basis of such fabrication and forged adoption deed, the non- petitioner/accused has sold the agricultural property, for which, otherwise the petitioner is entitled. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-petitioner/accused was not the adopted son of Late Sh. Badri Lal and accordingly, the trial Court rightly took cognizance vide order dated 04.12.2017 on a complaint made by the petitioner. The Revisional Court has committed serious irregularities and illegalities in quashing the cognizance without properly examining the report and without even getting report of FSL with regard to the adoption deed in question. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner/accused as well as learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and stated that after duly examining the contents of complaint, material on record as well as the judgment given by the Competent Civil Court with regard to veracity and validity of the adoption deed, the Revisional Court has rightly quashed the cognizance erroneously taken by the trial Court against the non- petitioner/accused. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Bare perusal of the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Revisional Court would make it clear that while examining the order of cognizance, it has been taken into consideration by the [2025:RJ-JP:40638] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6096/2019] Revisional Court that the adoption deed dated 04.06.1998 in favour of non-petitioner/accused was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by way of filing civil suit before the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Baran, which was decided vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2008, whereby suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and a categorical finding was given that the non- petitioner/accused was adopted son of Late Sh. Badri Lal pursuant to an adoption deed, which was legally and validly executed. 7. Bare perusal of the criminal complaint would reveal that sole basis of allegations levelled against the non- petitioner/accused was that the adoption deed dated 04.06.1998 was a forged document and on the basis of such forged document, the non-petitioner/accused has maliciously deprived the petitioner of her rights in respect of agricultural land earlier owned and possessed by her father. Since, the veracity and validity of adoption deed has already been examined by Civil Court and the judgment dated 02.05.2008 has been passed holding that the adoption deed was a valid and genuine document. It is a settled proposition of law that findings of Civil Court shall prevail over the criminal proceedings. 8. Hence, under these circumstances, I do not find any manifest error or illegality in the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Revisional Court. Hence, there is no scope for interference in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/60