[2025:RJ-JP:41748] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2677/2022 Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Shri Ramprasad Jat, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 323, Krishi Nagar Toll Tax, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ...Respondent 2. Shankar Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Narayan Lal Sharma, Resident Of Plot No. 01, Krishi Nagar, Toll Tax, Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Dinesh Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 13/10/2025 This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR No.1326 dated 18.08.2019 lodged by the respondent no.2/complainant (for short, ‘complainant’) at Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence under Sections 447, 504 and 506 of IPC as also for quashing the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter, Sanganer (for short, ‘learned ACMM’) whereby, the matter was remitted to the investigating agency for further investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contents of the subject FIR do not disclose commission of offence of either [2025:RJ-JP:41748] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-2677/2022] cheating or forgery. He further submits that a civil suit filed by her against the complainant involving the self same property is pending consideration before the Civil Court and therefore, the subject FIR is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that initially, the police has, after investigation, submitted negative final report finding the dispute to be of civil nature; but, the learned ACMM issued direction for further investigation vide order dated 23.12.2021 without considering the contents of the final report, rendering it illegal. He, therefore, prays that the criminal misc. petition be allowed, the subject FIR as also the order dated 23.12.2021 be quashed and set aside. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, would submit that the FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner. He, inviting attention of this Court towards the status report dated 24.07.2025 furnished by Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur (East), would submit that upon subjecting the title documents submitted by the petitioner to Forensic Science Laboratory Examination, signature of Shri Radhey Shyam Mehrwal-Secretary of the Vikas Bhawan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, has been found to be forged. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the criminal misc. petition. Heard. Considered. It is trite law that if the contents of FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence, it cannot be quashed by the Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence of criminal trespass against the petitioner. Further, during the course [2025:RJ-JP:41748] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2677/2022] of investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner has used forged allotment letter allegedly issued in her favour of the subject land by the Vikas Bhawan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited through its Secretary-Shri Radhey Shyam Mehrwal. It has been held in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others: 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support thereof, do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, the FIR can be quashed; but, herein, not only the FIR discloses commission of the cognizable offence by the petitioner but, from the evidence collected by the investigating agency, it is revealed that the petitioner used forged document to claim title over the subject property. Therefore, in view of the status report dated 24.07.2025 furnished by SHO Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur (East) reflecting forged signature of Shri Radhey Shyam on the title documents submitted by the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the FIR and the subsequent investigation pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed and set aside. So far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner about pendency of a civil suit is concerned, it is a well settled legal principle that mere pendency of a civil suit qua the subject matter of the FIR/investigation is no ground to quash the criminal proceeding if commission of a cognizable offence is disclosed thereby. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and Another: (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 645, dealing with the identical issue, held as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:41748] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-2677/2022] “5. Accepting such a general proposition would be against the provisions of law inasmuch as in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. However, in this case, the allegations were regarding the forging of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. The proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents. In a criminal court the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil court. Had the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by him in the complaint, the respondents were entitled to discharge or acquittal but not otherwise. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law. Civil proceedings, as distinguished from the criminal action, have to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yardsticks. The onus of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, in criminal case, is not applicable in the civil proceedings which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities with respect to the acts complained of. The High Court was not, in any way, justified to observe: "In my view, unless and until the civil court decides the question whether the document are genuine or forged, no criminal action can be initiated against the petitioners and in view of the same, the present criminal proceedings and taking cognizance and issue of process are clearly erroneous.” Insofar as the legality and validity of the order dated 23.12.2021 is concerned, submission of the learned counsel for [2025:RJ-JP:41748] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-2677/2022] the petitioner does not merit acceptance. This Court is not convinced that either it is a non-speaking order or, does not take into consideration the reasons assigned by the investigating agency while submitting the negative final report finding the dispute to be of civil nature. It is observed in the order impugned that even the investigating agency has expressed a suspicion about the genuineness of title documents furnished by the petitioner; but, without subjecting the same to the FSL examination, the same being part of the civil suit, the negative final report was submitted. The learned ACMM, recording a categorical finding that the reason assigned by the investigating agency finding the allegations to be of a civil nature for want of FSL examination was not just and proper, directed for further investigation consequent whereupon, after the FSL examination, the title documents have been found to be forged. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /86