Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2678 (RAJ)

Holi v. State of Rajasthan

2011-12-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Criminal Revision No. 13/2003, allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 and quashing the order dated 2.12.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara, whereby the cognizance was taken against the respondent No. 2 for the offences under Sections 448 and 427 I.P.C. 2. Assailing the order of the Revisional Court dated 25.8.2008, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case that Revisional Court has quashed the order of taking cognizance on the basis of certain documents which were not even the part of the record and thus, the order of the Revisional Court cannot be sustained. It is submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance, the only material which is available before the trial Court can be seen and the defence of the accused by way of additional documents, cannot be utilised by the Revisional Court for quashing the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has supported the order of the Revisional Court and submitted that since the petitioner had sold the property to the respondent No. 2 and even the Patta thereof had been issued by the concerned Local Body, therefore, there was no justification for the order taking cognizance and thus, it has been rightly set-aside by the Revisional Court. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had initially given a legal notice to the respondent No. 2 way back in the year 2000, therefore, the present F.I.R. was filed after a long delay and thus it is apparent that it was a dispute of civil rights which have been given a twist of the criminal case. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar and have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court as also the record of the case. 5. Suffice it to say that the Revisional Court has placed reliance on certain documents, i.e. the alleged agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of quashing the order taking cognizance, but a perusal of the record reveals that no such agreement is available on the record of the case. 5. Suffice it to say that the Revisional Court has placed reliance on certain documents, i.e. the alleged agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of quashing the order taking cognizance, but a perusal of the record reveals that no such agreement is available on the record of the case. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Revisional Court, whereby the Revisional Court has reversed the order of the trial Court dated 2.12.2002 taking cognizance, cannot be said to be justified. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Criminal Revision No. 13/2003 is set aside. The parties shall appear before the Revisional Court on 18.1.2012. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 2.12.2002 is restored. The respondent No. 2 is at a liberty to make all his objections before the trial Court at the stage of framing the charges. 7. The record of the Court below be sent back forthwith.Revision petition allowed. *******