JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order 23.2.2012 of Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur has been set aside whereby the trial court accepted the negative final report No. 564 of 2008 submitted by the police in FIR No. 115/2008 dated 5.3.2008 registered at Police Station Bassi, Jaipur. The revisional court further directed for reinvestigation in the matter in a particular manner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 and her family members. It has been stated in the FIR that the petitioner and other persons namely, Ram Kalyan, Nanag Ram Meena, Advocate Sanjay Jain, Advocate Kuldeep Sharma, Hari Narayan Sharma, Hanuman Sahai Sharma, Bhagwan Sahai Sharma, Mahadev Meena, Kamlesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar Meena have committed cheating with the respondent No.2 and their land have been illegally grabbed by executing false compromise regarding the land situated in Khasra No. 22, 41, 82 situated in village Bhatesari. According to the FIR, civil litigation was pending in various courts namely, SDO Bassi, Revenue Board, Ajmer etc. between respondent No.2 and Ram Kalyan s/o Mangla and in the said litigation the petitioner and various other persons submitted forged applications to withdraw and compromised the said matter and thereby the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC was made against the accused persons. It is also stated in the misc. petition that the correct factual aspect of the matter is that Bhonri Devi respondent No.2 and her family members namely, Badri, Gopal, Ram Lal, Kana Ram etc. submitted application to withdraw and settle the disputes with Ram kalyan before Revenue Board, Ajmer as well as SDO Bassi. In pursuance to the applications submitted by respondent No.2 and her family members, the order dated 18.10.2007 was passed by the Board of Revenue and the matter was consigned to record. After the settlement of dispute between respondent No.2 and Ram kalyan, the land in question was sold to the petitioner herein vide regsitered sale deed dated 20.10.2007 and accordingly the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record in pursuance to the sale deed. After the settlement of dispute between respondent No.2 and Ram kalyan, the land in question was sold to the petitioner herein vide regsitered sale deed dated 20.10.2007 and accordingly the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record in pursuance to the sale deed. Subsequent to the purchase of land, the land in question was acquired by the State Government and in lieu of the said acquisition JDA also issued the reservation letter dated 2.2.2008 to the petitioner for 13847.38 sq. mts. Of land. This shows that the title and the rights of the petitioner stood concluded subsequent to the purchase of the land. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR investigation was carried out and police submitted negative final report No. 564/ 2008 before the trial court. Protest petition was filed by the complainant before the trial court and after hearing the arguments of the complainant, the trial court accepted the negative final report submitted by the police vide order dated 4.3.2011. The respondent No.2 challenged the order dated 4.3.2011 before the Sessions Judge and the same was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan. Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 4.3.2011 accepting the final negative report submitted by the police. 3. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the revisional court has passed the impugned order contrary to the settled principle of law that reinvestigation cannot be directed by any court of law and in case the court feels that the investigation has not been carried out properly, then in such circumstances only further investigation can be directed. The revisional court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 along with her all the family members signed the applications seeking withdrawal /settlement of disputes before the court of SDO, Bassi and Revenue Board, Ajmer. The applications clearly bear the signature of the respondent No.2 and her family members. The fact of the signatures being available on the application has even not being denied by the respondent No.2 herself. The applications clearly bear the signature of the respondent No.2 and her family members. The fact of the signatures being available on the application has even not being denied by the respondent No.2 herself. The revisional court has failed to appreciate that on the basis of an assumption that respondent No.2 or her family members were not present in the court during the proceeedings or at the time of passing of the order dated 18.10.2007 by the Revenue Board, therefore, there was fraud committed by the petitioner and various persons against respondent No.2 and her family members. The revisional court has arbitrarily assumed that the presence of respondent No.2 or her family members was mandatory for the withdrawal / decision of the matters pending in Revenue Courts. The presence of the parties is not necessary for deciding any revenue litigation and particularly in the circumstances when the withdrawal application has been signed and submitted before the concerned courts. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, has drawn the attention of this court on sections 397 and 401 Criminal Procedure Code Sections 397 and 401 read as under: 397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. 401. High Court's powers of revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by Section 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. 4. Mr. Pathak has further drawn the attention of this court towards Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. and another, Western Law Cases (SC) Criminal 2009 (1) page 406 . Mr. Pathak has further contended that the advocates Sanjay Jain and Kuldeep Sharma, appeared as advocates as per the instructions received by them from their clients in the cases and they did their duties and there is no reason to drag them in this criminal matter. 5. Mr. Mr. Pathak has further contended that the advocates Sanjay Jain and Kuldeep Sharma, appeared as advocates as per the instructions received by them from their clients in the cases and they did their duties and there is no reason to drag them in this criminal matter. 5. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, PP appearing for the State has argued that the revisional court rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate accepting the negative report submitted by the police. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and considered the material available on record and also considered latest ruling cited by the learned counsel. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and considered the material available on record and also considered latest ruling cited by the learned counsel. 7. The Additional Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate No.13 in its order dated 4.3.2011 observed as under : " bl izdj.k esa izkfFkZ;k us viuh ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gLrk{kj mlus Lo;a us fd;s gS] ysfdu [kkyh dkxtksa ij djuk crk;k gSA tks xokgku ijhf{kr djk;s x;s gSa] mu lHkh xokgkuksa us vius l'kiFk c;kuksa esa U;k;ky; esa dgk gS fd ukuxjke us HkkSajhnsoh o vU; yksxksa ds [kkgh dkxtksa ij gLrk{kj djok fy;s] tks fd ts0Mh0,0 esa dkxt is'k djus ds uke ij djok;s vkSj mu ij jkedY;k.k ls feydj jkthukek is'k dj fn;k ysfdu gLrk{kj djuk izR;sd xokg us crk;k gSA buesa Jhefr HkkSajhnsoh] xksihjke] eksrhjke] jkeyky] xksiky] fxj/kkjh yky eh.kk o HkkxhjFk lkrksa xokgksa us [kkyh dkxtksa ij gLrk{kj djus ds laca/k esa dFku fd;s gSaA bl izdkj ifjoknh i{k dk dFku gS fd vizkFkhZx.k us [kkyh dkxtkr ij /kks[ks ls gLrk{kj djokdj U;k;ky; esa is'k dj fn;s vkSj ml vk/kkj ij ,0Mh0vks0 dksVZ cLlh ,oa jktLo e.My ds U;k;ky; esa Qslys gks x;sA iqfyl us viuh ,Q0vkj0 esa vafdr fd;k gS fd ifjokfn;k i{k Jhefr HkkSajhnsoh ds lEHkkxh; vk;qDr] t;iqj ds ;gka gkj gksus ij ,oa o"kZ 1981 ls py jgh dslckth ls ijs'kku gksdj Lo;a us U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj jkthukek djuk ik;k gS ,oa fdlh tkudkj ls dkuwuh jk; ysdj egt foi{khx.k dks ijs'kku djus ,oa dqN ykHk izkIr djus dh xtZ ls fjiksVZ dks c<+k&p<+kdj >wBk eqdnek ntZ djokuk ik;k gS ,o vne odw vkenu >wB esa ,Q0vkj0 is'k dh xbZA gLrk{kjksa ls bUdkj ifjoknh i{k us ugha fd;k gSA ek= mudk ;g dFku ys fd >wB cksydj [kkyh dkxtksa ij gLrk{kj djok;s Fks vkSj mudk U;k;ky; esa bLrseky fd;k gSA gLrk{kjksa dks ifjoknh i{k us Lo;a dk gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa tcfd gLrk{kj Lo;a dks gksuk Lo;a ifjoknh i{k eku jgk gSA bl ckcr dksbZ lk{; ifjoknh i{k dh vksj ls is'k ugha dh xbZ gS fd og gLrk{kj >wB cksydj ;k xyr fo'okl fnykdj vizkFkhx.k }kjk djok;s x;s gksA ekSf[kd lk{; esa xokgksa us vo'; dgk gS fd xyr fo'okl fnykdj gLrk{kj djk;s Fks] ysfdu mu gLrk{kjksa ls jktLo e.My ,oa ,e0Mh0vks0 dksVZ esa fu.kZ; gq, gSa] tks fd Lo;a l{ke U;k;ky; gSA ,slk dksbZ lk{; bl U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk dksbZ dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj fd;k x;k gks ;k QthZokM+k Ny vkfn fd;k x;k gksA tcfd ifjoknh i{k Lo;a ds gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj dj jgk gS ,oa ml vk/kkj ij l{ke U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fu.kZ; Hkh dj fn;k x;k gSA ;fn U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;s x;s jkthukek vkfn ij gLrk{kjksa ds ckjs esa ckn esa vkifRr;ka mBkbZ tk;s rks fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; dks dksbZ Hkh fu.kZ; dHkh Hkh bl vk/kkj ij pqukSrh fn;k tk ldsxk fd gLrk{kjdrkZ us gLrk{kj LosPNk ls ugha fd;k cfYd /kks[ks ls djk;s FksA bl izdkj ifjoknh i{k dk ;g rdZ Lohdkj ;ksX; izrhr gksrk gSA " 8. The Additional Sessions Judge in its order dated 23.2.2012 observed as under : " fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us dsoy bl vk/kkj ij vafre izfrosnu Lohdkj fd;k gS tks izkFkZuki=] jktLo e.My] vtesj rFkk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] cLlh ds ;gka isl fd;k x;k] mu izkFkZuki=ksa ij HkkSajhnsoh] xksihjke] eksrhjke] jkeyky vkfn xokgku ds gLrk{kj gSa] gLrk{kjksa ls euk ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk bu izkFkZuki=ksa U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; Hkh dj fn;k gSA i=koyh esa ,slh dksbZ lk{; Hkh ugha gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk dksbZ dwVjfpr nLokost rS;kj fd;k x;k gks ;k QthZokM+k fd;k x;k gksA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd jktLo e.My] vtesaj dSEi t;iqj esa fnukad 18-10-2007 dks fookfnr izkFkZuki= is'k djuk crk;k gS] ftl ij iakp O;fDr cnzh] jkeyky] xksiky] HkkSajhnsoh o dkuk ds gLrk{kj crk;s gSA fnukad 18-10-2007 dh vknsf'kdk Hkh is'k dh xbZ gS] vknsf'kdk esa dsoy vf/koDrk dh mifLFkr ntZ dh xbZ gS] i{kdkjku dh mifLFkfr ugha crkbZ xbZ gSA ;fn okLro esa ikapksa i{kdkj U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksrs] rks laHkor% muds gLrk{kj vknsf'kdkvksa ij djok;s tkrs ;k vknsf'kdk esa mudh mifLFkr ntZ dh tkrhA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr izkFkZuki= fu/kkZfjr fnukad dks is'k ugha gqvk] cfYd izkFkZuki= is'k dj i=koyh ryc djokbZ xbZ gS] vkxkeh rkjh[k 21-11-2007 dh] ysfdu i=koyh fnukad 18-10-2007 dks gh ryc djokbZ xbZ] ;g bl rF; ij lansg djrk gS fd okLro esa i{kdkjku ml fnu U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha Fks rFkk vf/koDrkvksa us gh izkFkZuki= izLrqr fd;kA izkFkZuki= ij jktLo e.My] vtesj dk ,.MkslZesUV gS] ml ij Hkh izkFkZuki= dsoy vfHkHkk"kd }kjk izLrqr fd;k tkuk gh fy[kk gSA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] cLlh esa tks jkthukek is'k fd;k x;k gS] ;g Hkh okLro esa jkthukek ds izk:i esa ugha gS] blesa oknh i{k ds gLrk{kj gh ugha gS] jkthukek rLnhd fd;k x;k gks] bl lEcU/k esa Hkh fjdkMZ ugha gSA U;k;ky; dh vknsf'kdk esa i{kdkjku dh mifLFkfr crkbZ ;k ugha bl ckcr Hkh fjdkMZ is'k ugha fd;k x;kA okLro esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us iw.kZ fjdkMZ fy;s fcuk gh vafre izfrosnu is'k dj fn;k gSA bl izdj.k esa eq[; :i ls ;g vuqla/kku djuk Fkk fd D;k HkkSajhnsoh] jkeyky] cnzh] dkukjke o xksiky us U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj jkthukek is'k fd;k ;k vihy dks foK fd;k ysfdu bl lEcU/k esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us lEiw.kZ lk{; ,d= ugha dh] bl dkj.k mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] cLlh dks U;k;ky; esa izLrq jkthukek ds rLnhd ckcr lk{; mudh mifLFkfr ckcr lk{; dks loZizFke fjdkMZ ij ysuk pkfg;sA ;fn lk{; ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd i{kdkjku nksuksa U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gq,] fcuk mudh mifLFkfr esa izdj.k Qsly gks x;s gS] rks bl lEcU/k esa i{kkdkju ds c;kuksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, iqu% lk{; ,d= djus o iqu% fopkj djus ds fy, fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hkstk tkuk mfpr gSA " 9. The Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that while accepting the negative report submitted by the police the court has to see other evidence but the same was not considered while passing the order accepting the negative report. 10. The application dated 18.10.2077 filed before the Board of Revenue reads as under : " ekU;oj] izkFkZuk i= fuEu fuosnu gS fd& 1- ;g fd vihykaV us ;g vihy ukuxk ds xksn iq= gksus vk/kkj ij is'k dh gS o ml vk/kkj ls gh vc rd] yM+rs vk jgs gSaA 2- ;g fd eaxyk iq= ?kklh tkfr eh.kk xzke HkVsljh rg0 cLlh ftyk t;iqj bl fookfnr Hkwfe dk [kkrsnkj Fkk ftlus jkedY;k.k i= jktdqaokj dks xksn ys fy;k Fkk o xksn ukek miiath;d t;iqj ds fnukad 51-1-83 dks djok;k Fkk tks lgh gS o mls ge Lohdkj djrs gS eaxyk iq= ?kklh us ukuxk dks dHkh xksn ugha fy;k gS xksn dh dksbZ fy[kk i<+h ugha dh gSA 3- ;g fd ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k t;iqj ds ukuxk iq= ekaX;k us vius vkidks nRrd iq= ?kksf"kr djus dk nkok Hkh fd;k tks fn0 29-8-02 dks [kkfjt gks x;kA 4- ;g fd gekjs firk o ifr ukuxk us eaxyk ds thrs th fojklr dk ukekUrjdj.k Hkxoku lgk; ljiap ls [kqyok;k Fkk Hkxokulgk; ljiap us blds cnys esa viuh iRuh eaxyh ds uke dqN tehu dh jftLV~h djokdj ukekUrjdj.k viuh iRuh ds uke Lo;a us Lohdkj dj fn;k tks ukekUrjdj.k Hkh [kkfjt gks x;k o mDr [kkfjt dk vkns'k jktLo e.My vtesj rd cgky j[kk gS eaxyh iq=h uUnk iRuh Hkxokulgk; ds uke jktLo fjdkMZ esa dksbZ vadu ugha gSA 5- ;g fd laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds fu.kZ; 19-6-07 ds rgr jkedY;k.k nRrd iq= eaxyk ds uke ukekUrjdj.k Hkh gks pqdk gS ftls ge Lohdkj djrs gSa mldh dksb vihy geus ugha dh gSA 6- ;g fd laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds fu.kZ; gks tkus ,oa fu.kZ;kuqlkj ukekUrjdj.k jkedY;k.k ds i{k esa gks tkus dh fLFkfr esa vc ge vihy ugha pykuk pkgrs gSa ,oa u pykus dh otg ls [kkjht dh tkosA bl izdkj dk izkFkZuk i= Hkh nLrkost esa is'k dj nsxsaA vr% izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd vihy vihykaV u pykus dh otg ls foM~ks fd;s tkus o [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh vkKk iznku djsaA " 11. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 18.10.2007, which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under : 18.10.2007 SB Jh dqynhi 'kekZ] lnL; odhy izkFkhZ@vizkFkhZ mi0 odhy izkFkhZ us izk0i= is'k dj fuosnu fd;k gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; dksbX fookn ugha gksus ds dkj.k fopkjk/khu okn dks vkxs pykuk ugha pkgrs gSA vr% odhy izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA odhy izkFkhZ }kjk fuxjkuh dk vkxs ugha pykus ds dkj.k blh Lrj ij [kkfjt dh tkrh gS] i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj uEcj ls dks gksA Sd/ lnL; jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj 12. It may also be mentioned that the stamp papers for registry were purchased by Shri Narain Meena vide S. No.6613 dated 16.10.2007 from Prabhu Dutt Kumhar, Stamp Vendor Tehsil Bassi. The registration of the registry was done on 20.10.2007 vide receipt No.20070021417. Two persons Hanuman Sahai and Bhonri Lal signed the sale deed before the Sub Registar Bassi. The sale deed dated 20.10.2007 which was between Ram kalyan Meena adopted son of Mangala Meena resident of village Bhatesari, Tehsil Bassi and Shri Narain Meena aged 34 years son of Bhonri Lal Meena has also been looked by me. From bare perusal of the sale deed it is clear that while registering the sale deed Ram kalyan produced the Jamabandi which was in his name. Nothing has been suppressed by him at the time of registration. After registration of sale deed on 20.10.2007, the Jamabandi was done in the name of Shri Narain Meena son of Bhonri Lal resident of Todabhata on 13.5.2010 (copy of which has been enclosed with the misc. petition as Annexure-6). 13. The FIR Annexure-1 was lodged on 5.3.2008 by Bhonri Devi wife of Nanga Ram. Before registration of FIR on 2.2.2008 the Jaipur Development Authority issued reservation letter in the name of Shri Narain Meena son of Bhonri Lal Meena resident of village Bhatesari, Tehsil Bassi 14. The Apex Court in Raghuraj Singh Rousha v. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters held as under : 19. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugnbed judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The High Court shall implead the appellan tas a party in the criminal revision application, hear the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order. 15. The Apex Court in Raghuraj Singh Rousha v. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters held as under : 19. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugnbed judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The High Court shall implead the appellan tas a party in the criminal revision application, hear the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order. 15. It is an admitted case that the petitioner and the other persons named in the FIR were not impleaded as parties in the revision filed by the complainant before the revisional court and the revisional court without calling the petitioner and other persons named in the FIR, allowed the revision petition. 16. In view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. M/s. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd. and another in which various other judgments of the Apex court were considered, I pass the following order : a) The misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2011 is set aside. b) In the interest of justice I direct the Sessions Judge Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur to hear the revision petition afresh or assigned the revision petition for hearing except the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan to decide the revision petition as a afresh after impleading the petitioner and other persons named in the FIR as a parties in the revision petition and after serving notice to the parties and hearing both the parties. c) The parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur on 30.4.2012 or before the Presiding Officer of the Court where the case is transferred. d) The copy of this order may be sent to the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur and the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur. The criminal misc. petition stands allowed as indicated above. The stay application also stands disposed of. Petition allowed. *******