GUMAN KHANDELWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought for quashment of FIR No. 376/2018 registered with Ashok Nagar, Police Station District Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for offences under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) Mr. Sudhir Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer is on the ground that a pure civil dispute has been sought to be redressed by a criminal proceeding especially after expiry of the limitation period for civil proceeding. Moreover, the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioners. Even for arguments sake, the prosecution case is accepted as it is, in FIR No. 3/2023 registered with SOG/ATS Police Station, Jaipur for offenes under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC wherein forgery of different pattas said to be issued by JDA has been raised against the petitioners including the pattas referred in the impugned FIR and this Court has already refused to quash FIR No. 3/2023 above in SB. Cr. Writ Petition No. 618/2023 decided on 27/7/2023, therefore, allowing multiple criminal proceedings for the same cause would be an abuse of the process of law.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 Mr. S.S. Hora contends that mere pendency of a civil proceeding between the parties even if pending before a higher Court would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings if the criminal proceedings discloses commission of cognizable offence. Reliance has been placed on Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 555. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 next contends that in Ponnusamy Selvamani Vs. State & Ors., reported in , the Hon'ble Madras High Court stated that just because the claim under civil law got time barred, it could not at all be termed that the criminal action would not follow. Learned Counsel next contends that it is admission of the petitioners that the patta, on the basis whereof petitioner No. 1 pretended before respondent No. 2 that she had title to sale the referred plot, was forged one, therefore, at the time of entering into agreement with respondent No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 was aware of the fact of forgery of the patta and as such acted with dishonest and fraudulent intention at the inception of the agreement.