Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2505 (RAJ)

Baldev v. State of Rajasthan

2006-08-21

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, CrPC the petitioners have challenged the order dated 212.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, district Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) whereby the trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 167, 168 and 120-B, IPC and issued process against the petitioners. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 3. Non-petitioner No. 2 Billu Singh filed a complaint before the trial Court against the petitioners, which was sent for investigation to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kesrisinghpur under Section 156(3), CrPC. The police, after thorough investigation, filed negative final report being F.R. No. 13 dated 18.08.1998. On a notice, the Non-petitioner No. 2 filed a protest petition and produced himself as CW 1 and also the witnesses CW 2, CW 3 and CW 4. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they pretending themselves to be the members of scheduled caste showing their caste as Meghwal, purchased the land from the Non-petitioner No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1972 and since then they are in possession of the land; but subsequently, according to the complainant, it was revealed that the petitioners are not by caste Meghwal and the members of scheduled caste but they are by caste Bishnoi which is a general class and, therefore, they have wrongly purchased the land from the complainant who is claimed to be the member of scheduled caste. 5. The police investigated the matter thoroughly. There had been revenue litigations between the parties right from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sri Karanpur to the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, culminating the revenue proceedings in favour of the petitioners. The police collected the copies of the Judgment s and orders of various Courts, as also the ration card, caste certificate issued by the competent authority showing the petitioner to be the members of scheduled caste, as also recorded the statements of the witnesses of the area, who clearly stated that the petitioners are by caste Meghwal and members of scheduled caste. The certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Karanpur dated 20.05.1998 shows that the petitioners are bonafide residents of revenue tehsil Sri Karanpur and Meghwal by caste. The certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Karanpur dated 20.05.1998 shows that the petitioners are bonafide residents of revenue tehsil Sri Karanpur and Meghwal by caste. The ration card also shows the caste of the petitioners as Meghwal. In the revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue, being Revision Petition No. 6/1982, wherein the petitioners were arraigned as non-petitioners and in the cause title, they have been shown as Meghwal by caste. The trial Court, without accepting the negative final report, took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners vide impugned order dated 12.2001. No reasons have been assigned by the trial Court for not agreeing with the negative final report filed by the police, as also the trial Court did not consider the various documentary evidence collected by the police during investigation, which were filed alongwith the final report. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the trial Court fell in error in taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against the petitioners without assigning the reason for disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the police, more particularly when there is evidence, may be Judgment s of the Revenue Court, as also the certificate and ration card etc. collected by the police and filed with the negative final report by the police. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court. 6. In the result, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 212.2001 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against the petitioners is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to pass a fresh order by considering the negative final report and the documents submitted by the police therewith, in accordance with law.