Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1690 (RAJ)

Almi v. State of Rajasthan

2003-12-19

N.N.MATHUR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh dated 21.2.2003 confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharsana dated 27.8.2001 taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC. 2. After the death of Haku Khan, the petitioner Almi married to his brother Hakim Khan. It is alleged that she got 25 Bighas of land of Muraba No. 211/60 in Tehsil Gharsana mutated in her name alone. In appeal, it was held that her right on the land was only to the extent of 6.05 Bighas and rest of the land vested with other brothers namely Attar Khan and Hakim Khan. The accused Mat. Almi alleged to have sold the entire land by a registered sale- deed dated 26.3.1999 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is also alleged that the valuation of the land was under valued. Thus, according to the complainant Mst. Almi had played a fraud with them by selling the entire land without authority. On this complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 I.PC. After the investigation, police found it to be a case of civil nature and as such forwarded a negative Final Report. It was objected by the complainant by way of protest petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharsana by order dated 27.8.2001 took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 lRC. The order has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh. 3. At the outset, it is brought to my notice that the appellate order whereby the right of petitioner Mst. Almi was restricted to the extent of 6.05 Bighas has been set aside by the Board of Revenue. In view of this fact, the order of mutation of entire 25 Bighas of land in favour of the petitioner remains intact. On consideration o the entire material, I am of the view that it is pure and simple dispute of civil nature. The question is as to whether the land is vested in the petitioner or not. This issue can only be decided by the civil court. There is evidence to show that land was sold with the agreement of the brothers. The question is as to whether the land is vested in the petitioner or not. This issue can only be decided by the civil court. There is evidence to show that land was sold with the agreement of the brothers. In view of this, it cannot be said that the petitioner has in any way cheated the other brothers of her deceased husband. 4. The learned counsel for the parties has referred to various decisions of the Apex Court as to the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. The first case referred is Karnaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3846 and the another case referred is State, through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru & Others, reported in 2003 (4) Supreme 133 . I am conscious of the scope of interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. Applying all the relevant considerations, I am of the view that it is a fit case which calls for interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since, the matter is purely of civil nature, it is not desirable to continue a parallel criminal proceedings. 5. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 21.2.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh and the order dated 27.8.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharsana is set aside. The criminal proceedings being Criminal Case No. 516/2001 State v. Almi pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharsana are quashed.Petition Allowed. *******