RUPA RAM S/O SHRI CHIMA RAM, B/C JAT AGED 48 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SHIV SAGAR, PATWAR HALKA JETHANIA, LRI AREA SHETRAWA, TEHSIL SHERGARH, DISTRICT JODHPUR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL SHERGARH, DISTRICT JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.141/2016 of Police Station Dechu, Jodhpur (Rural).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant only with the intention to harass the petitioner and his family members. It is contended that in relation an agricultural land, the father of the petitioner and other persons had already filed a revenue suit under Sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Shergarh, in which, ad interim stay order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shergarh on 7.6.2016 and to negate that ad interim stay order, the complainant has filed this false FIR against the petitioner and the other persons. It is also contended that one of the persons named in the FIR died way back in the year 1977, however, he has been shown as one of the accused in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that when revenue and civil dispute are going on between the parties, the impugned FIR filed against the petitioner and other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 Penal Code cannot be maintained. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR has been lodged after a delay of three months and, therefore, the same may be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report and argued that the police after thorough investigation has found prima facie case against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427/34 IPC. It is contended that four of the accused persons including the petitioner have already been arrested and enlarged on bail. It is also contended that the police has prima facie concluded that on 9.6.2016, the petitioner along with other persons had trespassed in the agricultural land of the complainant and destroyed the property over there and therefore prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.