[2025:RJ-JP:41742] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5491/2016 Smt Rambakshi W/o Late Shri. Ramvilas, Plot No. 168 Harijan Basti, Koliyo Ki Khari Kothi, Babu Ka Tila Ps Ramganj, Distt. Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp 2. Ramesh S/o Late Shri. Mahadev, Plot No. 168 Harijan Basti, Koliyo Ki Khari Kothi, Babu Ka Tila Ps Ramganj, Distt. Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. C. Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 13/10/2025 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside FIR No.147/2007 registered at Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur City (South) and all the subsequent proceedings including order of cognizance dated 30.11.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 2. It is stated that late Sh. Mahadev son of Sh. Sona was owner of Plot No.168, Harijan Basti Yojna, Chokdi Topkhana Hajuri, Jaipur. Sh. Mahadev had two sons Ramesh and Ramvilas. Petitioner is widow of Ramvilas, who died on 10.03.1994. [2025:RJ-JP:41742] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-5491/2016] 3. During his life time, late Sh. Mahadev executed one Will dated 25.05.1988, whereby it was declared that after his death, both of his sons Ramesh and Ramvilas shall be having equal half share in aforesaid plot No.168. 4. It was submitted that as per aforesaid Will, earlier husband of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner has been in ownership and possession of half portion of plot No.168. It has also been submitted that the complainant-Ramesh applied for issuance of lease deed (patta) of plot No.168, however, on account of alleged dispute between the heirs of late Sh. Mahadev, the authority asked him to produce succession certificate for which he submitted an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the Competent Civil Court. In the said application, the petitioner was also impleaded as a party who submitted reply to the application in the manner that she was having right in respect of half of the share of plot No.168 by virtue of Will dated 25.05.1988, which was executed by late Sh. Mahadev in favour of her husband. 5. It is submitted that the aforesaid application was dismissed by the Competent Civil Court on 26.02.2007. 6. Immediately after dismissal of the said complaint, concealing the fact with regard to earlier litigation, one criminal complaint No.56/2007 was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner being widow of late Sh. Ramvilas and other two persons Gopi and Raju who stood as witness on the said Will. 7. It is submitted that thereafter, both the witnesses Raju and Gopi have also expired. [2025:RJ-JP:41742] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-5491/2016] 8. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said FIR detailed investigation was conducted by the Police Authority and thereafter, one negative final report was submitted before Competent Court revealing therein that the dispute between the parties was of the civil nature and no offence is found to have been made out against the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that against the said negative final report, protest petition was lodged by the complainant and on such protest petition vide order dated 30.11.2015, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan directed the Police Authority to conduct re-investigation. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that firstly, the facts would reveal that the FIR was malicious in nature as earlier, the same was subject matter of consideration in civil litigation under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act between the complainant and the petitioner. However, after remaining unsuccessful in the civil litigation, FIR was lodged by the complainant, and there was no reference whatsoever in the FIR with regard to fate of earlier civil litigation. 11. It was further submitted that in Will dated 25.05.1988, the complainant as well as late husband of the petitioner, both were beneficiary of equal share and the Will was executed in the year 1988, however, FIR was lodged after 19 years from the date of execution of the Will, whereas the complainant was well aware of the said Will. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Police Authority committed no mistake in submitting negative FR, finding the dispute to be of civil nature and having no criminal elements [2025:RJ-JP:41742] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-5491/2016] in the contents of FIR. At the stage when one of the beneficiaries of Ramvilas as well as both the witnesses to the Will have also expired, pursuing the FR dated 12.09.2007 would be nothing but an abuse of process of law in order to harass and victimise the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, as per procedure contemplated in Cr.P.C., once negative FR has been given, thereafter, on examination of the material on record, although the Competent Court can issue direction for further investigation, yet no directions whatsoever can be granted for re- investigation. However, learned court below has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction by issuing directions for re- investigation in the instant matter and in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak & Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab Birani & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 823; Sachin Garg Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 (2) Supreme 73 and Anukul Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.4250/2025 decided on 24.09.2025, wherein giving criminal colour to the civil litigation has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the FIR/criminal complaint has been quashed. 14. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of the respondent-complainant. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submitted that the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:41742] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-5491/2016] 30.11.2015 has been passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after examining the material enclosed by the Investigating Officer along with negative FR and it was found that the conclusion was arrived at by the Investigating Officer without even conducting any FSL investigation with regard to thumb impression available on the Will in question. Hence, merely using the word "re-investigation" would not change the true spirit of the order in which directions have been given. After considering the fact that FSL examination was not conducted, directions for investigation were given and as such directions were limited only to confining the FSL examination and cannot be considered as re- examination. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. Bare perusal of the contents of the FIR would reveal that the petitioner was not original beneficiary of the Will dated 25.05.1988, and she has inherited property on account of death of beneficiary, who was her husband. It is evident from the record that husband of the petitioner died in the year 1994 and as informed, even both the witnesses to the Will have also expired. 18. It is also clear from the perusal of the FIR that for the same property, earlier dispute was raised by the complainant by way of approaching the Civil Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the negative FR earlier filed by the Investigating Officer also reveals that such application under Section 372 was also dismissed on 26.02.2007. Thus, it appears that when after exhausting his remedies under civil law, the complainant could not get a desirable relief, in quite malicious [2025:RJ-JP:41742] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-5491/2016] manner, instead of pursuing the correct civil remedies, he opted for invoking criminal jurisdiction of the court and only, therefore, with an ulterior motive the FIR in question was lodged by him. The delay in lodging FIR itself puts a question mark on the bona fides of the complainant and nowhere has it been alleged that the Will dated 25.05.1988 was fabricated by the petitioner. Perusal of the Will (Annexure-2) would make it clear that it is a registered document and has been duly registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Jaipur on 25.05.1988. Thus, the date of execution of the Will cannot be disputed by the complainant. Under these circumstances, in order to dispute the registered document, which otherwise creates civil rights, lodging criminal complaint cannot be said to be remedy under law and it is clear that the institution of such an FIR is an abuse of the process of law. 19. Without properly appreciating that the dispute between the parties was purely of a civil nature, the court below has mechanically issued directions for re-investigation in the matter, whereas it has been clearly held in the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra) that the court below could not have been directed for re- investigation. Of course, a direction of further investigation could be given in case the Court was of the view that the investigation on a particular point has not been properly conducted by the Investigating Officer. 20. Nevertheless, in the instant case, where it is manifest and apparent that the dispute was purely civil in nature and in the case of Sachin Garg (supra), Anukul (supra) and Rikhab Birani (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure in the [2025:RJ-JP:41742] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-5491/2016] cases, where the rights, duties and obligations are relating to civil transactions and in case criminal procedure is invoked in such matters, it would break down the rule of law and amount to misuse and the abuse of process of law. 21. For foregoing discussions and reasons, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and the FIR No.147/2007 registered at Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur City (South) along with all other further proceedings is quashed and set aside. 22. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /74