LEELLA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material/record of the case made available to me during arguments of the case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the disputed house, earlier one FIR No.6/2002 was registered on 9.1.2002. Subsequently, the accused petitioner filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction on 15.2.2002 and they gave reference to so called agreement dated 3.1.91 in para 2 of the Civil suit. Copy of the civil suit was served on defendant who is complainant in the present case. The complainant came to know about the said agreement, but no immediate FIR was registered. The written statement was filed in 2003, which clearly shows that it was in the knowledge of the complainant that an agreement was executed on 3.1.91. The so called agreement is a subject matter of civil suit also the Civil Court is competent to decide the question on the basis of evidence, as to whether the said agreement is forged or not. There is no explanation as to why the present FIR was lodged after so much delay. This case appears to be a case of harassment to the petitioner.

(3.) After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I am inclined to allow the bail application of the petitioner under Sec. 438 Crimial P.C.