HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6348/2018
1. Tarun Chaturvedi S/o Shri Dilip Kumar, R/o Sangam Hotel
Ki Gali Gumanpura Kota Raj.
2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal, R/o Gulab Bari
Rampura Kotawali Kota Dist. Kota Raj.
3. Shabir S/o Shri Sahabuddin, R/o Sanjay Nagar Gali No 8
Bhimganj Mandi Kota Dist. Kota Raj.
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.
2. Smt. Rashmi Tiwari W/o Late Shri Nitin Tiwari, R/o B-43
Ballabh Nagar Kishorepura Kota City Dist. Kota Raj.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP for State
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of FIR No.0141/2018, registered at Police
Station Kishorepura, Kota City for offences under Sections 452,
354, 341, 323 and 34 IPC.
Complainant in the FIR stated that she was staying at B-43,
Ballabh Nagar, Kota from last fifteen years and her husband had
expired eight years ago. She stated that she was staying
alongwith her children. She stated that on the fateful day the
accused came to her house forcefully, gave beating to her and
made her fall on the ground. Thereafter she called police station.
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6348/2018]
On the above said allegation, case has been registered
against the petitioners for offences under Sections 452, 354, 341,
323, 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised following two
(a). That the house in question has been purchased by the
petitioners in 2015 vide registered sale deed.
(b). That from a bare perusal of the FIR, no offence under
Section 354 IPC is made out.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this court is
of the view that having purchased the property, petitioners are
necessarily not in possession of the property. As to who is in
possession of the property is a disputed question of fact. A person
who has purchased the property cannot forcibly dispossess the
person who is residing in the property. Therefore, prima facie,
offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 34 IPC are made out. So
far offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, this court is not
aware whether any supplementary statement has been recorded
by the Investigating Officer or not. Investigation is in progress. If
the Investigating Officer come to the conclusion that there is no
material qua offence under Section 354 IPC, he may omit the
Hence, present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)