BALVEER KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.9.2013 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur has refused to hand over the original pattas pertaining to one Kishore Khatik to the Investigating Officer, who is investigating the matter in connection with F.I.R. No. 44/2013 of Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur with the allegation of cheating and forgery against Shri Khemraj and others. The said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur wherein an F.I.R. No. 44/2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. In the complaint, it was alleged by one Smt. Pallvi Mehta that she has purchased a pattasud plot in her name, however, after purchasing the said plot by her, the original owner has sold the said plot twice to some other persons on the basis of some counterfeit patta prepared by the accused persons.

(3.) Earlier the father of the complainant Pallavi Mehta has filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Civil Court') for permanent injunction in respect of the plot in dispute and the said suit is registered as a Civil Suit No. 37/2010 and the plaintiff and defendant in the said suit have filed two original pattas in relation to the same plot. The Investigating Officer, who is investigating the matter in connection with F.I.R. No. 44/2013 has filed an application before the Civil Court while contending that as the rival parties are having two original pattas for the same property and for the purpose of investigation and for sending the original pattas for F.S.L., the same may be made available to him. The learned Civil Court has rejected the said application of the Investigating Officer vide order dated 6.9.2013.