Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1508 (RAJ)

Banshi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali, Head Quarter Jaitaran, Distt. Pali, whereby the Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bar, Distt. Pali in connection with F.I.R. No. 127/2011 (F.R. No. 63/2011) of Police Station Raipur, Distt. Pali. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court concerned against Jasoda, Murlidhar and Satyanarayan for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. The complainant alleged that his parents owned 14 bighas of agricultural land covering various khasras in the village Birantiya Kurd. As per the complainant, his parents gifted the said land to him out of love and affection. The complainant further alleged that he has paid the consideration for this act of his parents. It was also alleged that on the death of his father, the Patwari, Birantiya Kurd without intimating him and without proper quorum of the Panchayat got the mutation of the land carried out in the names of Satyanarayan, Kalawati, Kiran and Sukhi Devi. The complainant alleged that the objective of the mutation was to deprive the complainant of the land to which he was exclusively entitled. 3. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. The police registered an F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 127/2011 at the Police Station Raipur, Distt. Pali. The police after investigation did not find the case to be made out and submitted a F.R. in the Court concerned. The notice of the F.R. was given to the complainant, who appeared but did not choose to submit either any protest petition or to examine the witnesses for challenging the F.R. The learned trial Court found that the Patwari entered the mutation in the names of all the legal heirs of Prem Dass on his death and therefore, neither any cheating nor any fabrication of the record was disclosed from the material available on the record. The learned trial Court also found that the revenue proceedings in relation to the land in question were under consideration in the Court of the learned Assistant Distt. Collector, Raipur. The learned trial Court also found that the revenue proceedings in relation to the land in question were under consideration in the Court of the learned Assistant Distt. Collector, Raipur. The learned trial Judge thus concluded that no prima facie offence was made out from the material available on the record and accordingly, he accepted the F.R. filed by the police. 4. The order accepting the F.R. was challenged by the petitioner-complainant by way of a revision but he did not implead the proposed accused as party to the revision petition. The learned Revisional Court rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant by its order dated 1.8.2012. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned subordinate Courts amount to a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He thus urged that the misc. petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 7. From a bare perusal of the orders passed by the learned subordinate Courts, it is evidence that the grievance of the petitioner was that the mutation entry of the Khasras in question was wrongly made by the Patwari and the Sarpanch etc. The material collected by the Investigating Agency shows that the property in question stood in the name of Prem Dass. On the death of Prem Dass, the property in question was mutated in the names of all his legal heirs including the complainant on the basis of inheritance. Thus, there? arises no question of any cheating or fabrication of the record being done in this case. That apart, the mutation entry is simply a fiscal entry and does not give rise to any right, title or interest on the property. Thus, none of the offences for which the petitioner-complainant raised the grievance in his complaint can be said to be made out in this case. The complainant has not approached the Courts with clean hands. The proposed accused being none other than the close relatives of the petitioner-complainant were not even made party in the revision petition as well as in the instant misc. petition.Resultantly, the misc. petition being bereft of any" force is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******