Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1073 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Kaloo Lal S/o Kanhaiyalal

2004-07-29

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.7.1996 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter), whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondent of the offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code. 2. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 8.7.1996, appellant- State of Rajasthan has filed the instant criminal appeal with leave to file this appeal to this Court. 3. I have heard the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the respondent. Perused the order and judgment impugned and carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. 4. A complaint Ex.P/4 was filed by Chunnilal (PW-4) before Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara which was forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. Upon this, police registered first information report Ex.P/5 and after investigation filed challan against the respondent for the offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code. The respondent denied the charges. The prosecution adduced evidence by producing as many as six witnesses. The respondent made a statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and denied the allegations. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he was acquitted. 5. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that an agreement Ex.P/1 was entered into between complainant PW-4 Chunnilal and the respondent, whereby the respondent agreed that at his own expenses he will manage invitation from the community to the complainant which the respondent failed to do and therefore cheated the complainant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that very essential ingredients for constituting the offence punishable under section 420 Indian Penal Code are not made out even from the evidence produced by the prosecution. 7. I have carefully gone through the statement of PW-4 Chunnilal, the complainant and the other witnesses produced by the prosecution, as also the agreement Ex.P/1. It appears from the evidence of PW-4 Chunnilal that the complainant and the respondent were turned out by the community people and thereafter both of them were not generally invited in the functions of the community to which they belong. Thereafter, there was a meeting of the community members and some settlement was arrived at between them. It appears from the evidence of PW-4 Chunnilal that the complainant and the respondent were turned out by the community people and thereafter both of them were not generally invited in the functions of the community to which they belong. Thereafter, there was a meeting of the community members and some settlement was arrived at between them. There were certain litigations pending between the complainant PW-4 and the respondent in the Courts and both the parties agreed that they will withdraw the cases against each other. However, to the extent of withdrawal of the cases, there appears to be no dispute. The only grievance of PW-4 complainant remained that the respondent was allowed to participate in the community functions and started receiving invitations from the community members, but the complainant was denied invitation from the community members. According to the complainant, it was the responsibility of the respondent to persuade the community members so that they may invite the complainant also to the community meetings. 8. From perusal of statement of PW-4, it nowhere appears that assurance was given by the respondent by deceitful means and even otherwise if the respondent has given any such assurance it depends upon wishes of the members of the community to invite the complainant or not. The other witness PW-1 Roshanlal stated that the agreement Ex.P/1 was entered into between the complainant and the respondent. However, he denied regarding any dispute. From the statement of PW-1 it also appears that there used to be elections of community members and in the election some dispute arose between the complainant and the respondent. PW-2 Shankerlal is the witness to the effect that there was a meeting of community Punch in Village Saloda and PW-4 the complainant was turned out from the meeting on the ground that he picked up quarrel with the respondent. At any rate, even if the complainant was turned out from the community panchayat, the respondent had nothing to do with it and he is not responsible for turning out of the complainant from the community meetings. From a close scrutiny of the entire evidence produced by the parties, it cannot be said that the respondent dishonestly or fraudulently managed turning out of the complainant from the community meetings. From a close scrutiny of the entire evidence produced by the parties, it cannot be said that the respondent dishonestly or fraudulently managed turning out of the complainant from the community meetings. In the circumstances therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is based on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties. 9. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The bail bond of the respondent stands discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******