KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) A co-ordinate Bench on 16.1.2018 had dismissed the same prayer of the co-accused Bhupendra Singh vide SBCRLMP No. 5504/2017. The order dated 16.1.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench in case of co-accused, reads as under:- "This criminal misc. petition has been preferred by accusedpetitioner Bhupender Singh with the prayer to quash and setaside FIR No.211/2013 registered at P.S. JDA, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case for the alleged offences is made out on bare perusal of the FIR. The land bearing Khasaras No.51, 52, 53 and 55 situated at Jhalana Chod Maharani Farm, Jaipur belongs to Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, which was purchased by it from its original khatedar Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi. Meena Colony Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited is laying a baseless claim over this property and has wrongly developed a scheme namely Raghuvihar in this property. The Society has issued pattas to its members without having any ownership over the land in question. One of such allottees Gordhan Singh has lodged this FIR, which is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2 has contended that the said property consisting of Khasara Nos.51,52,53 and 55 was never purchased by Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited from Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi. On the contrary, pattas of such land were issued to Smt. Reena Kumari and Smt. Kamal Kumari with the consent or knowledge of Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi. This fact has been acknowledged by Rajmata Gayatri Devi herself vide certificate dated 28.05.1975. Thereafter, Smt. Reena Kumari and Smt. Kamal Kumari executed two agreements to sale this property in favour of Navjeevan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited on dated 08.05.1975 and 15.06.1975. Thereafter on 15.07.1981, Navjeevan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. through its Secretary Jagdish Prasad Sharma executed an agreement to transfer this property in favour of Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited in furtherance of its resolution dated 30.06.1981. Thus, the claim laid by Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited over this land is baseless and the documents, if any, submitted in this regard are forged and fabricated. Learned Public Prosecutor, while referring to the status report of investigation received from SHO, PS Shipra Path, Jaipur South vide letter dated 05.12.2017, has stated that after detailed investigation, the documents of Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited with regard to the property in question have been found to be forged and fabricated. Jaipur Development Authority has also filed an FIR No.509/2016 in this regard. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by rival sides. Both the sides have referred to various documents in regard to the property in dispute to substantiate their claim over it. On perusal of the revenue record submitted on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the land of Khasara Nos. 51, 52, 53, 55 % 57 was originally entered in the name of Farm Shri Maharani Ji Sahiba. These khasara numbers were later on converted into 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 as per the settlement record. Both the rival parties are claiming to have purchased this land under an agreement to sale. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to agreements to sale Ann.-2, Ann.-3 and Ann.-4 executed on 15.10.1978, 05.11.1978 and 05.11.1979 respectively between Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi and Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited. Whereas, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has contended that with the consent and knowledge of Rajmata Smt. Gayatri Devi, the land was given to Smt. Reena Kumari and Smt.Kamal Kumari, from whom the land was purchased by Navjeevan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited under two agreements to sale and thereafter, vide agreement dated 15.07.1981, Secretary Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma of Navjeevan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited transferred this land to Meena Colony Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited. An enquiry report given on 31.05.2016 by Regional Audit Officer of Cooperative Societies, Jaipur Division, Jaipur has also been referred by learned counsel for the respondent, wherein it is mentioned that Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited has been dissolved and administrator has been appointed. Report dated 12.10.2017 of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur City has also been referred to by learned counsel for the respondent, whereby the recommendation has been made for initiating legal proceedings in regard to the forged and fabricated documents prepared by Hathroi Gadhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, its office bearers and employee Bhupender Singh, who happens to be petitioner herein. As per this report, the office bearers of the Society have also been declared ineligible under Section 28(11) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2011 and the Society is said to be in liquidation. Having considered the facts mentioned herein-above, it is found that rival claims have been laid by both the sides in regard to the property in dispute and the documents relied upon by both the sides require a thorough investigation. In such circumstance, it cannot be inferred that FIR No.211/2013 does make out any prima facie case for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. It is an established legal proposition that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are to be exercised with great care and circumspection and FIR can be quashed only in the circumstance when the facts mentioned therein do disclose any commission of the offence even if the facts are taken on face value. The case in hand does appear in the nature stated above. Resultantly, this Court does not feel inclined to allow the petition and the same is dismissed. "
(2.) The investigation is in progress. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to split the case of each accused.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner to raise all arguments available to him before the trial court in case investigating agency propose to prosecute him.;