[2025:RJ-JP:24233] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 406/2018 Yogendra Kumar S/o Shri Nand Kishore, R/o Dehlahedi Police Thana Anta Hal Ntpc Tiraha, Kota Bara Road, Anta Police Thana Anta, District Baran. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp. 2. Nandkishore S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal Galav, R/o Dehlahedi Police Thana Anta, District Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 01/07/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner complainant aggrieved from order dated 08.02.2018 in revision No.19/2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baran, whereby in a revision filed by respondent No.2, order of cognizance dated 19.01.2017 in criminal case No. 43/2017 under Section 465 IPC was set aside. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring report received from P.S. Anta and relevant documents and submitted that dishonest intention of respondent No.2, father of present petitioner, about fabrication of the document is proved, which was filed before the revenue court to cause damage to present petitioner. He submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate, Anta after considering the evidence and documents has passed an order of cognizance on 19.01.2017 but in revision application filed [2025:RJ-JP:24233] (2 of 4) [CRLR-406/2018] by respondent No.2 accused the revisional court has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of cognizance. He further submitted that police has also investigated the matter and found that since the matter pertains to civil nature and on this ground they have closed the matter but the trial court has found that essential ingredients to constitute criminal offence is present in the instant case. He further submitted that it is a serious attempt by respondent No.2 to gain advantage from fabricated document by making false signature of petitioner. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and submitted that the age of respondent No.2 is more than 72 years and currently he is hospitalized. He further submitted that complainant petitioner and respondent No.2 are son and father and only to grab this property, this case is registered by complainant. He further submitted that no case is made out and the trial court has exceeded jurisdiction and order of cognizance was rightly set aside by learned Sessions Judge. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that petitioner complainant has filed a complaint against respondent No.2 and others about joint khatedari land and alleged that by making forged signature of present petitioner, accused has prepared false family settlement. On the basis of this complaint, FIR No.165/2013 was registered at P.S. Anta, Baran. After investigation, police has filed a closure report. On protest petition and examination of complainant AW1, the trial court has passed an order of cognizance on 19.01.2017. This order was challenged [2025:RJ-JP:24233] (3 of 4) [CRLR-406/2018] before learned Sessions Judge by filing a revision and on 08.02.2018, the revision of respondent No.2 is allowed and order of cognizance dated 19.01.2017 was set aside. The matter was investigated by police and a closure report (F.R.) was filed on the ground that the matter relates to a civil nature. It is also brought on record that there is a family dispute between complainant, his father and brothers and pending litigation before Land Settlement Officer and Revenue Appellate Authority. 6. In case of Lalmuni Devi vs State Of Bihar & Ors 2001 (2) SCC 17 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the proposition that any facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amounts to an offence under the criminal law. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable it does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. Earlier in case of Mushtaq Ahmad vs Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi & Ors. 1996 (7) SCC 440, these issues were considered. The grounds were further considered in case of M. Krishnan vs Vijay Singh & Anr. 2001 (8) SCC 645 and Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State Of Bihar 2019 (6) SCC 107. 7. Having considered the facts as brought on record, it appears that the document in question is neither examined by any handwriting expert nor by FSL. After investigation report submitted by police on 06.01.2016, learned Judicial Magistrate has opined about discrepancies in the alleged document, which were dealt in report dated 06.01.2016, and based on said circumstances, an order of cognizance was passed by the trial court but the revisional court has not taken note of such opinion about said questioned document. [2025:RJ-JP:24233] (4 of 4) [CRLR-406/2018] 8. After considering the material on record, I am of considered view that it would be appropriate to set aside the order dated 08.02.2018 in criminal revision No.19/2017 and order dated 19.01.2017 in criminal case No.43/2017 and after remitting the matter, direct trial court for examination of document by handwriting expert or FSL and after receipt of report, pass appropriate order after hearing complainant and Assistant Public Prosecutor. 9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, instant revision petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 08.02.2018 in criminal revision petition No.19/2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baran and order dated 19.01.2017 in criminal case No.43/2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Anta are set aside and matter is remitted back to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Anta for fresh consideration at the pre-cognizance stage with direction to examine disputed/questioned document from handwriting expert or FSL, whatever is available and after receipt of report, pass appropriate order at the stage of cognizance after considering submission of complainant and Assistant Public Prosecutor. 10. The complainant is directed to appear before learned Judicial Magistrate on 12.08.2025. 11. Accordingly, instant revision petition with pending application stand disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /56