M.N Bhandari, J.:— By this petition, a prayer is made for quashing of FIR bearing No. 624/2010, registered with Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City (East).
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for one and same dispute, there exist two FIRs. The first FIR was lodged bearing No. 29/1996. After the investigation, final report was given. There was no occasion for the complainant to lodge second FIR in regard to same dispute and the plots in question. The petitioner had purchased the plot of land genuinely. If the patta issued by the Appolo Nagar Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (in short “society”) is compared with other pattas, truth can very well be assessed, yet allegation of forged pattas has been made. The petitioner being bonafide purchaser and having patta of the society, filed a suit when threatening was given by the other party. The civil suit was, however, not maintainable, thus it was withdrawn. The petitioner then filed petition under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (in short “Act of 2001”). At that stage, the FIR was again lodged. It is nothing but to design and settle the score with the petitioner. Few other patta-holders approached the Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Development Authority and remained successful. If signatures of Ashok Agrawal and Madan Gopal on other pattas are compared with the pattas issued to the petitioner, it would be found similar, thus FIR deserves to be quashed. It is moreso that the petitioner has not taken patta from Kajod Meena against whom allegation for issuance of forged pattas exist.
3. Learned counsel for non-petitioner-complainant and the Public Prosecutor submitted that first FIR was not against the petitioner but one Kajod Meena, who had printed forged pattas of the society and issued in favour of many persons. The final report was not given after considering allegations to be false but due to non-availability of Kajod Meena. The allegation was for issuance of forged pattas for Plot Nos. 18 to 23 and the petitioner is having patta of plot number 21. The perusal of final report on the first FIR shows that despite notice given to Kajod Meena, he did not appear, thus final report was given but would be opened on availability of Shri Meena. The petitioner has not given correct facts to the court in regard to the first FIR. The non-petitioner had lodged FIR against Kajod Meena after knowing about his fraudulent act. When role of the petitioner also came, the FIR in question was lodged against her. If patta issued to the petitioner is genuine, truth would come in the investigation. This court may not record finding of fact showing that patta, said to have been issued to the petitioner, is genuine. It is not a case where on failure of first FIR, second FIR has been lodged for the same allegation. It is also not due to filing of petition under the Act of 2001. When fact regarding forged pattas came to the knowledge, the FIR was lodged. It is unnecessarily taken to be a counter to the petition preferred under the Act of 2001. It is otherwise subject matter of investigation. In view of the above, interference in the impugned FIR may not be made.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
5. The first ground to challenge the FIR in question is in reference to the earlier FIR bearing No. 29/1996 and final report given therein. The copy of the final report was not filed along with present petition but shown at the time of arguments. The perusal of final report does not show conclusion to be favourable to Kajod Meena who is alleged to have created forged pattas of Plot Nos. 18 to 23. Kajod Meena did not appear before Investigation Officer, thus neither original patta could be recovered nor his signatures. The final report was given in those circumstances but with clear indication that FIR would be investigated further when Kajod Meena would become available. The perusal of first FIR reveals role of Kajod Meena only. In view of aforesaid, it is not a case where on the first FIR, negative final report was given after recording finding about the allegations. The perusal of the second FIR does not show that similar allegations have been made against the same accused, rather knowing about the act of the accused herein, the specific allegations have been made against them. Whether petitioner holds genuine patta or not would be came out in the investigation. The argument has been raised in reference to petition filed under the Act of 2001. It may be true that on filing of petition under the Act of 2001, FIR was lodged against the petitioner but it would not effect the allegation.
6. Looking to the chequered history and the material available on record, I do not find that FIR can be quashed, however, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the IO to hold fair and transparent investigation in the case. For that purposes, he would recover the original pattas and other material so as to seek report from FSL to find out the truth and then to draw conclusions. The IO is also directed to make proper investigation and whoever is found involved for the fraudulent act, should be booked leaving those who are having genuine pattas. Accordingly, further investigation would be in the light of direction given above and be monitored by the concerned DCP. It is made clear that if investigation is not made fairly and properly, a serious view would be taken and can have consequence.