Narendra Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner is widow of the late co-accused/Rajendra Singh and is impugning order dated 11.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner, in Criminal Case No.1511/2018, whereby, protest petition filed by the complainant was accepted. Pursuant thereto cognizance of an offence only under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner was taken after six years of filing of the protest petition, though in the FIR certain other offences were alleged against the petitioner. Vide an order dated 09.07.2024, also assailed herein, trial court also issued arrest warrant against her without first serving bailable warrants.

Respondent No.2/complainant’s case against the petitioner and her late husband, Shri Rajendra Singh/accused No.1, is that on 07.08.1980, his late father, Nathu Singh, during his lifetime appointed late husband of petitioner herein as his power of attorney qua his land. This power of attorney was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner. Nathu Singh passed away on 10.09.2006. After his death husband of petitioner fraudulently executed a sale deed for the land in favor of petitioner-Narendra Kanwar on 04.03.2008. In the year 2012, a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was filed which led to registration of F.I.R. No.367/2012 dated 03.11.2012 for offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC against the petitioner and her husband. Pertinently petitioner’s husband expired on 30.04.2012 as noted by the trial court in the order impugned i.e. much prior to the registration of the FIR.

Following a thorough investigation, the police found no criminal offense and submitted a final (negative) report before the trial court.

However, respondent No.2 filed a protest petition. The learned trial court, on 11.06.2018, allowed the protest petition and refused to accept the police's final report, taking cognizance of the offense under Section 420 of the IPC against the accused-petitioner.

A bailable warrant was issued, with the matter scheduled for 20.08.2018. However, the bailable warrant could not be served on the petitioner, and the matter remained pending through out from 20.08.2018 to 09.07.2024. Vide order impugned dated 09.07.2024, without the bailable warrant being served, the learned trial court has issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner and now set the next hearing for 12.01.2025.

Hence, this petition.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges leveled against her and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives. He asserts that the learned trial court did not appreciate the law or the evidence on record while taking cognizance of the offenses against her. Furthermore, the court issued a warrant of arrest against the widow petitioner without even first serving the bailable warrant.

8.1. That the police investigation found commission of no offense, concluding that the complainant's father had sold his share of the agricultural land on 09.04.1980 i.e. decades ago, and the petitioner and her late husband have been in continuous possession since then.

8.2. Learned counsel argues that FIR was registered after 32 years of the land transaction. In any case transaction was carried out by the deceased husband of the petitioner. Allegations are all against him and on that count, petitioner – wife cannot be held liable for the crime, if at all committed by her late husband. The complainant has initiated the prosecution with ulterior motive after the market value of the land increased. This action is driven by greed rather than a genuine grievance. He urges that civil litigation is also pending over the same property, which indicates that the criminal prosecution is in complete abuse of process of law.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and states that no interference by this Court is required and law will take its own course.

On a Court query posed to learned Public Prosecutor, he does not controvert that the FIR was indeed registered after 32 years of the alleged land transaction and the transaction was carried out by the deceased husband of the petitioner and allegations are also all levelled against him. No worthwhile justification, plausible or otherwise, has come forth for such a colossal delay in instituting the criminal proceedings.

On that short premise alone, ibid, I am of the view that protest petition filed by respondent No.2/complainant lacks any merit and the negative final report dated 12.12.2012 filed by prosecution deserves to be accepted and as a consequence is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the orders dated 11.06.2018 and 09.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner, in Criminal Case No.1511/2018 are also not sustainable.

Petition is thus allowed. Impugned orders dated 11.06.2018 and 09.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner, in Criminal Case No.1511/2018, are set aside, with consequences to follow. F.I.R. No.367/2012 dated 03.11.2012 lodged at Police Station Sadar Bikaner, District Bikaner, for offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC against the petitioner, is quashed. Qua husband of petitioner i.e. Rajendra Singh, criminal proceedings offences, if any, already stand abated on his death.

Parties are at liberty to establish their title in the pending civil court proceedings in accordance with law by adducing evidence qua their rival claims.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.