[2026:RJ-JP:1706] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 81/2020 1. Jagdish Son Of Late Shri Ram Pratap, By Caste Bagra Brahmin, Resident Of Village Nagriawala, Bagro Ki Dhanik, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur At Present Sector 22, Opposite Nri Colony, Pratap Nagar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Raj. 2. Hasanpura Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Through Authorized Representative Jagdish, Son Of Late Shri Ram Pratap Aged About 54 Years B/c Bagra Brahmin Resident Of Sector 22, Opposite Nri Colony, Pratap Nagar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Sitaram Son Of Shri Chhitar, By Caste Bagra Brahman, Resident Of Village Nagriawala, Bagro Ki Dhani, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Development Authority, Zone-9, Through Authorized Officer Jai Narain Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur 3. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP, Mr. Umesh Vyas HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 15/01/2026 1. It is contended by learned counsel for Sitaram (Respondent No.1) that S.B Civil Writ Petition No.13761/2017, titled Jagdish vs. Sitaram, was filed before the Court and the said writ petition was [2026:RJ-JP:1706] (2 of 3) [CRLMA-81/2020] decided vide order dated 11.10.2017. In the said writ petition, Sitaram (Respondent No.1) filed an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., and vide order dated 11.10.2017, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed the office to list the application separately for appropriate order. Thereafter, the matter was listed separately for initiating action against the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended that in the application submitted under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., it is alleged that the Jagdish (Petitioner No.1) filed an authorization letter without authority and forged the documents. It is also contended that vide order dated 14.09.2022, the Registry was directed to conduct an enquiry about the genuineness of the authorization letter. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the Registry has submitted the enquiry report; however, it failed to conduct FSL of the signatures present on the said authorization letter. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for Jagdish (petitioner No.1) that the authorization letter was issued by the concerned authority and the Jagdish (petitioner No.1) was duly authorized by the Hasanpura Samiti to submit the writ and he did not forge any document. It is contended that the Registry conducted the enquiry and found that the then President, Mr. Anil Agrawal, authorized the petitioner to submit the writ. The authorization letter was issued by Mr. Anil, who was the President at the relevant time of Hasanpura Samiti Ltd. The (Jagdish) petitioner No.1 has not forged any document, therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner may be dropped. [2026:RJ-JP:1706] (3 of 3) [CRLMA-81/2020] 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. The Registry conducted the enquiry about the authorization letter submitted in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13761/2017 and categorically opined that Exhibit PE-1, which was submitted before this Court, was fully valid and genuine and prima facie it was not established that the document was forged or false. 7. Therefore, in the light of the enquiry conducted by the Registry, there is no ground to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner Jagdish. 8. Hence, the criminal misc. petition is disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/26