[2025:RJ-JP:41373] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3894/2017 1. Smt. Shanti W/o Kajod, R/o Sarsop, Police Station Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. 2. Kajod Meena S/o Ram Kishan, R/o Village Sarsop, Police Station Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. 3. Krishna Murari @ Manraj S/o Kajod Meena, R/o Village Sarsop, Police Station Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p. 2. Gangadhar Meena S/o Shri Bhuralal Meena, R/o Sarsop, Police Station Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Aquif Khan, Adv. for Mr. Fahad Hasan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 10/10/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for challenging FIR No.50/2017 registered at Police Station Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur along with all further proceedings initiated pursuant to the said FIR. 2. It is stated that the complainant-Gangadhar Meena lodged one FIR against the petitioners with the allegations that land bearing Khasra No.1842/2188 and 3450 situated at Village Sarsop was purchased by the complainant, where crop of mustard [2025:RJ-JP:41373] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3894/2017] was sown by him, however on 22.01.2017, crop was forcibly harvested by the accused-petitioners, in order to cause grave loss to the complainant. On such written complaint, the police registered FIR and initiated investigation against the petitioners. 3. It is submitted that the said FIR was lodged on 08.03.2017, however, much earlier to the said FIR, one civil suit No.143/2016 was filed by the complainant before the Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur in respect of same land bearing Khasra No.1842/2188 and 3450 situated at Village Sarsop for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.06.1999 and permanent injunction in which counter claim was also filed by the petitioner No.2, who was defendant in the said civil suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that factum of filing of civil suit was maliciously concealed by the complainant while lodging FIR, whereas the fact is that on that date, the complainant was not the khatedar of the said land and had already filed civil suit for claiming rights by seeking a decree of specific performance of contract. It is further submitted that the suit filed by the complainant has been dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge, Chouth Ka Barwada vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2025 and counter claim filed by the petitioner No.2 in the said suit has been decreed. The alleged agreement dated 18.06.1999, on the basis of which the complainant was claiming rights over the said land has been declared as null and void and the complainant has been restrained from making any interference whatsoever in the possession, use and utilization of the said land. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is clear by the aforesaid facts that FIR was lodged maliciously [2025:RJ-JP:41373] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3894/2017] only to pressurize the petitioners for conceding the civil suit with regard to land in question in favour of the complainant, and for that purpose, when civil suit was already pending, the dispute could not have been criminalized by the complainant by lodging false and fictitious FIR. It is submitted that rights which can be claimed only through civil litigation, cannot be indirectly enforced by lodging false criminal case and in case, the FIR is allowed to be prosecuted further, it would cause grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. Hence, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by submitting that the contents of FIR are yet to be investigated and only on account of stay granted by this Court in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, investigation could not be made by the Investigating Agency so as to arrive at any conclusion with regard to contents of FIR and under these circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is premature and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that although, civil litigation was going on between the parties, but mere pendency of civil litigation would not authorise the petitioners to use force and to harvest the crop, which was sown by the complainant. Hence, quite rightly, FIR was lodged by the complainant, in which no interference can be made in the instant petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:41373] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3894/2017] 9. This fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that prior to lodging the FIR, civil suit was filed by the complainant against the petitioner No.2, however, no justification has been put forward for suppressing this material fact in the FIR, whereas the civil suit and FIR are related to same land and FIR has been lodged narrating rights and interest of the complainant over the land in question, whereas such question was already pending consideration before the competent Civil Court and decided vide judgment & decree dated 31.05.2025. Copy of judgment & decree dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Civil Court and produced by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record. Suppression of such fact in FIR in itself reveals the malafides on the part of the complainant. Thus, it is clear that the complainant has attempted to abuse the process of law by lodging the FIR in relation to the same land for which civil suit was filed, whch was duly contested by the petitioner No.2. 10. Even otherwise, the question of possession was also in consideration before the Civil Court and the judgment dated 31.05.2025 delivered by the Civil Court would reveal that the complainant had no right whatsoever in respect of land in question. Thus, clearly the dispute between the parties was of civil nature, for which no criminal colour could have been given by the complainant by lodging FIR and his such conduct clearly shows that he wanted to exert undue pressure over the petitioners. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down following guidelines:- [2025:RJ-JP:41373] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3894/2017] "(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 have given 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:41373] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3894/2017] 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." 12. Thus, under the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash and set aside FIR No.50/2017 registered at Police Station Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur along with all further proceedings, if any, initiated pursuant to the said FIR. 13. Ordered accordingly. 14. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /8